manufacturing and would preservation. it was featured in movies erin brockovich as has been listed in the report on carcinogens since 1980 as a known human carcinogen. it is well-established that a suggestion of high concentrations of chromium-6 can lead to severe gastrointestinal distress and death. the ndp has done extensive animal testing on chromium-6 in drinking water and found that it causes cancer in laboratory animals following exposure in drinking water. they have also funding university research studying chromium-6. scientists at duke university are looking at chromium-6 toxicity and expression of genes that may ultimately lead to cancer. a research group at brown university funded by our superfund research program is studying how exposure to chromium-6 modifies dna and human cell. this research gives information about though some biological response and why one person is

affected when another person is not. other researchers in the group at brown are developing new methods for moving chromium-6 from water supplies. perchlorate under the chemical of concern is found naturally in our climates but it is also manufactured in the u.s. for the nation's and fireworks. we are concerned about perchlorate because they can affect thyroid function by inhibiting the transport of iodine into the thyroid glands. iodide uptake is necessary for the normal production of thyroid hormones which are an essential infield and postnatal brain development. in pregnant women severe iodine deficiency results in neurodevelopment of problems in defeatist of newborns so we need to act if perchlorate in drinking water is linked to problems in infants. we also need to learn if the court has an effect on vulnerable groups such as low birthweight or preterm infants. this is a very hot area of research. a series of papers from the cdc and niehs but doing 2009-2011

confirmed that perchlorate levels in infants can do with perchlorate levels in their moms. at this point we are not sure if low doses result in harm's to human development but it's an important question. again, cleanup is a key focus of our work. to our superfund research program we are supporting development of online perchlorate detection and remediation system. and affordable units for water source analysis in the field. and now to try, tce is a solvent widely used for decreasing and clean material and as a householder. due to its widespread use tce is often than as a contaminant in groundwater in drinking water. tce can evaporate from contaminated water creating a risk of inhalation exposure. this is important in the closed face of the home was showering, dishwashing and laundry

activities can increase the potential for exposure by both inhalation and absorption through the skin. children exposed to tce contaminated water supplies have been reported to have increased respire tory disease such as bronchitis, asthma and pneumonia. in this case the well was contented with a mixture of volatile compounds beside tce, including the related compound perk for a filling. the link between exposure to tce in humans is uncertain. one study of more than one and half million residents in 75 different have shown higher incidences of leukemia and non-hodgkin's lymphoma. in groups of females exposed to tce concentrations greater than five parts per billion. several studies conducted in attitudes it's let the massachusetts department of health to conclude there was an eight fold higher risk of leukemia in children whose mothers were exposed to solventt

contaminated drink and water during pregnancy. these days again and called a mixture of chemicals including tce in the water. tce was listed in 2005 as reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen and a congressionally mandated report on carcinogens. the listing was based on evidence from seven human studies along with the studies and laboratory animals. both show that tce exposure caused tumors especially can deliver. argue of epidemiological literature's show that tce was associate with higher incidences of liver cancer, kidney cancer, non-hodgkin's lymphoma, prostate cancer and multiple myeloma. but the studies were based on a relatively small number of exposed workers and were confounded by exposures to other volatile solvents and risk factors. our work on tce is continuing in several superfund program.

this multidisciplinary project combines hydrogen a logical epidemiological and mechanistic research to determine if any of these chemicals are associate with the risk of preterm birth. they're also testing a new remediation strategy using solar energy to break that tce and groundwater. at the university of washington center is using genetically engineered to break down organic chemicals and the university of kentucky center has pioneered a new type of nano particle filters that remove tce from water. in conclusion it's important to remember that determine risk from chemical exposures through drinking water or through any other exposure is a complicated enterprise. new data are telling us to look beyond chemical concentrations in water or air, and instead look at the chemical concentrations inside our bodies. we also need to consider the timing of exposure. our individual genetic accessibility and the fact that

our exposures are always to a mixture of chemical. at niehs we are proud to provide the best possible science in support of the incredibly difficult task at our sister register agencies they speak we are committed to advancing the science to new heights given the newest tools to improve our understanding of the effects of environmental chemicals and to promote effective strategy for reduction in disease prevention. thank you for the opportunity to testify. and i will be happy to answer your questions. >> thank you. administrator jackson, how prevalent is perchlorate in drinking water across the nation? >> studies show that perchlorate is in the tricky waters between 5,000,017,000,000 americans. >> and my information says about 28 states, is that about right? >> i do believe that's right. 26 states and two territories.

>> okay. and that's an detectable levels, i'm assuming the above a level that you're looking at in setting a standard at. >> i think that's an accurate assumption, chairman. >> so we are looking at a major problem. what about chromium-6, do we know that? >> that's a little more difficult and part of the reason our initial intervention with water systems is to help them know how to test for it at very low levels. we currently regulate total chromium at 100 parts per billion, and chromium-6 is part of that. out what part of total chromium is chrome six is the operative question. so the first step of advising system water to test for roaming six is one of the reasons i'm assuming is to see how prevalent it is across the country, is that right? >> yes. because they ewg report was the snapshot and doesn't give us a sense of whether and how often

we're going to see this contaminant. >> are you having good feedback from the local folks or are they complaining about the fact they have to test? what are you hearing? >> the first thing we got were lots of questions. and i think it's fair to say that putting out a standard testing methodology we did that in part because we knew people were looking at the ewg methodology and didn't know if they could replicate it. so we took a peer-reviewed message and i think people were generally grateful for the. i know witnesses on the next panel, some of the me take a position we shouldn't ask for test but i don't think that's the kind of entity american people expect when they are presented with a new contaminant at that window sizes and probably more dangerous than we originally believed it to be. >> so when he think you'll have assigned back, the results of these tests? >> the results of the test will come in over the course of an issue. what we're waiting on that is that peer review, the external

peer review of a risk assessment of chromium-6. this is the site based on the findings at chrome-6 causes cancer in our drinking water, which is brand-new. we have done a risk assessment there. that will take us almost probably through most of the rest of this year, and then when i said we will move as quickly as possible after the peer review is done. and we are sure we have good science to change the regulation, to change the standard. >> right, but when we start getting back the results of the testing from the various drinking water systems across the country? are they going to start reporting them back to? >> right. that's voluntary. they are not under orders to do but they're also of course purveyors as we heard to feel a responsibility make sure they're getting good data for their customers. >> what do you know now as far as -- you have any notion of how

chromium -- how a system's chromium-6 is showing up in at the higher levels? >> because the levels are so much lower we do know that they have been taken in the past for the ewg said it shows that our systems with chrome-6 in them. and that chromium moves between chrome three and chrome-6. row three is not bad. chrome-6 is where we have real health concerns. >> but you don't have as do with perchlorate yet, the number of systems that are impacted are the states that are affected by chrome-6? >> 18%, madam chair, of systems detect total chromium. other studies have shown 30 to 40% of the systems may have total chromium because we measure that. what we don't have is how much of it is chromium-6. >> but we'll have that item before you make your recommendations? >> absolutely. they'll be important information for us to have because before occurring in the decision about being able to intervene and how to end in will be based on where we are seeing it and why. >> could you comment on the

importance of the agency using the best available science to develop drinking water safeguards for perchlorate, how are you doing that? and what are your next steps, sorest setting a standard? >> i couldn't emphasize enough the importance of using science, the best of able signs, but also want to say the difference, the prior administration made a decision not to act on perchlorate. that difference here is actually very simple. it's protection of children and protection of mothers who are carrying children. the issue here is that extra layer of protectiveness for pregnant women. because changes in thyroid production while a baby is forming can have impacts, demonstrate impacts as we heard dr. birnbaum say, under development. and development issues in children is a huge problem. we are airing on the side of looking for a level that will be protective but will also do it

according to the safe to the safe drinking water act. >> thank you very much, and i don't think there's any one of us here who hasn't said our children are our future and that's one of the reasons we are here, and i just have to say you make me very proud as a senator from california, because sometimes we get into arguments that are based on philosophy rather than what's really happening to people. our people that we are sworn to protect. so i just want to thank you for that. senator inhofe. >> thank you, madam chair. let me go ahead and put the language from the opinion of the court in the record immediately following the request that you made to be part of the record. >> without objection. >> that language is if the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes epa from making a reasonable judgment as to whether greenhouse gases contributed to warming the epa must say so. the other thing, this was

brought up i senator barrasso. i know that this is on water, this hearing, but i agree with you, it's appropriate to bring up anything that is in the jurisdiction of this committee. when he talks about the finding, and i think it's very important, and since we have administrator jackson here, i will recall a question i asked administrator jackson. this would've been last december right before i left for copenhagen when i said, as the question, i have a feeling we will be making an endangerment finding in the next few days, and when you do i would like to find out, asked for the record what side you would be basing it on. your answer was for the proposal the agency relied on large part on the assessment report developed by the intergovernmental panel of climate change. we have talked about quite often how coincidentally that was precisely the same time that "climategate" came up that was

characterized as one of the worst scandals in our recent history. the daily telegraph in london said the scandal could well be the greatest in modern science. clod crook who is an environment is in the atlantic magazine said quote the closemindedness of the supposedly in of size, their willingness to go to any length to defend a preconceived method and surprising even to me to think of intellectual corruption is overpowering. i just want to keep getting this into the record because this seems to be the size. in fact, we are writing about this right and i think it's kind of interesting to see the responses we've been getting. i think it's important. we have said relying on the size, sound science of a times during the course of history and previous hearings that i think we need to be doing that. let me just really quickly, i would just like to have the assurance that as you progress

in the health effects of chromium-6 that you would commit to this committee that the epa is not rushing a decision in making process and decision making process and will allow for a full and complete assessment of the data. it was the california water agencies that came out with the report to treat the chromium to a lower level at a cost of 300, 300 to $500 per acre which is more than the purchase of the water itself. so that's a commitment i would like you to take all these things into consideration before coming to conclusions. >> senator, i commit to following the safe drinking water act which puts in place a number of reviews, small business reviews, hhs consultation of cost-benefit analysis, technology analysis, to look at availability, and

impact a small system. all of that is mandated by the law and is part of the reason it takes up to two years for epa to propose a new standard. >> the following question would take too long to answer some asking you to answer for the record if you would. and that is, in april of 2010 inspector general declared or conclude that the epa science level was good, and then the standard came out in september of the same year. between those months. and i would ask you what led to the change at the agency's position, specifically between those two months on perchlorate air and then lastly, since the time is short and with good attendance, and i'm very thankful we do, one of the things that i want to be very careful about because i know there is an effort out to start regulating hydraulic fracking. not many people realize that with the huge reserves that we

have and the united states does have the largest recoverable reserves in coal, oil and natural gas that any country in the world, that this particular technology has been used since 1948 of hydraulic fracking is something, and i know this because in 1948 it started in my state of oklahoma, that there's not been the case, document case of groundwater contamination using hydraulic fracking. and if we are to developand entities close formations it has to be done. 100% of these, these recoverable reserves can only become a reality if we are using certain techniques. and everyone would be be that of hydraulic fracking. so i would like to have you, the request of would make of you, in response you want to make right now, of course, would be fine, but also any further investigation into that technique i want to be a part of it and perhaps i can offer some expertise from personal

experience, our experience in oklahoma. >> we look forward to working with you. on hydraulic fracking, we are about to round out our work plan which isthought to be review and public comment. we expect in the next month or two to have the work plan for our study finished. i wanted a to point on hydraulic fracking. why is it is not an unregulated activity. many localities, many states regulate aspects of the doing process but one thing i think epa can do to add to the body of knowledge is to determine whether there are any holes in the regulatory structure. it's not decision of federal regulation that will be needed. it could be, i met prejudging that. the second thing i will say is that i think what we give the american people comfort with all that they are seeing about this technology is the knowledge that regulars are not backing away from looking at it but rather are doing everything we can to understand and ensure we have good science. >> and you would take into

consideration those regulations that come from the states because it's varying applications to this technology from state to state. >> and states are different. the number of people in population density are different but there may be a need for federal role. recently don't know and the study will take a while. i have to say for the record on climate change that after there were questions raised about one specific line of e-mails there were numerous peer-reviewed studies and people who went back and read reviews and found that the data and the questions about the data and scientific judgment did not change the basic science that man-made emissions are changing our climate, changing our atmosphere, degrading it to the point that it is impacting our planet. and that's what the engagement finding says spirit and that there are opposing views to -- >> i absolutely acknowledge opposing views, including yours, senator. you know that. >> the senator went over two

minutes and 25 seconds but i do have to correct the record because you quoted as saying it's appropriate to ask about carbon pollution. what i said was that this is a hearing on safe drinking water, but everyone has the right to say whatever they want. because it's america and we do that. but i would hope we would stick to the safe drinking water act because as we see, dr. birnbaum sitting on her water, we all need to make sure that our kids, our grandkids and our families are drinking safe water. and i also want to make a statement to you. we're going to, senator barrasso and senator inhofe, we're going to look at the sight of carbon pollution and its impact on our people, on our planet. so you'll have plenty of time because we are actually going to keep up with assigned. so let me assure you that don't be fearful that went on to talk about because we are really looking forward to talking about it. and working with senator

whitehouse to see if some oversight responsibility and he is working on getting us going with some hearings and we're not going to call on senator cardin. >> thank you, madam chair. whether it is the clean water act or the clean air act, administrator jackson, i want to thank you for following the science. we have documented hundreds of thousands of lives that have been saved, and how the impact of clean water and clean air have on our economy. how important it is for my state of maryland, this goes beyond just help because beyond just the economy. the health of the chesapeake bay is critically important for the quality of life for the people that live in this region. my constituents want you to fall the science. perhaps we need to do a better job in showing how we have

connected the dots in saving lives and helping our economy in saving our features of this nature -- nation for future generations i want to ask you about the chromium-6, both eyewitnesses about the chromium-6 because as you know one of the cities that was reported was bethesda, maryland. we are being asked, should people who are of certain type take precautions in drinking the water that comes out of the tap in maryland? and what is the timeline you are looking at in being able to give further direction as to potential risks that are out there in regards to chromium-6? >> i'll speak first about the regulatory timeline and that come straight out of the safe drinking water act. there are number of requirements. want to get the risk assessment. we've already issued guidance on how to test. we've offer technical assistance

but it could take up to two years. i think that will be the outside timeframe for epa to propose a safe level of chromium-6 to change the standard to include chromium-6. and then there's public comment and 18 months to final after that. >> should we be -- are their target groups that should be taking precautions? >> i think the first thing is to test, to understand whether or not is one sample those taken in bethesda is representative of a problem in the entire system. and if so, why? and that's the guidance we have already offered. i want the people of bethesda, the people of america to understand that our risk assessment look at lifetime, years and years of exposures to a chemical. so there's not something that's going to happen because of one day or two days, but that if there is real concern out there, there are products available in the marketplace. you have to make sure when you buy one of these that it treats chromium-6, but there are products that are available.

>> dr. birnbaum? >> the studies not only show that chromium-6 in drinking water was associate with cancer in both rats and mice, both males and females, but it also showed that the levels that were associated with that cancer were within a factor of 10 of some of the highest levels that have been reported of human exposure. and within a factor of 50 of what we commonly see in drinking water, contaminated drinking water supply. so we're not talking about thousands and thousands and thousands fold greater level. so i think there is some concern. i think we really don't know whether there is a population and that's what some of the basic research that we are funding is trying to understand is what makes people especially susceptible. >> i would just ask that if risk factors become known, that there

be transparency and that the public be made aware as soon as possible. i want to move on because there's some information after that collects is a source of chromium-6. with unanimous consent to put in the record the -- that relate to that issue of coal ash and carbon sinks. >> without objection stack my question is is is bp looking at coal ash as a source of chromium-6 and our drink -- thinking water? >> we have proposed and taking over 400,000 public comments on regulation of coal ash to protect primarily our drink and water supply. >> i would point out that coal ash that is put in landfills we are concerned about, coal ash is then recycled such as cement. you have the ability to

distinguish between coal ash is being put at risk in our environment, those that are being recycled. >> that is essentially right, center. i agree with that completely. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. senator johanns. >> madam chair, thank you. let me if i might, because i mentioned this in my opening comments, just offer for the record, madam chair, action is a letter that was written to the ranking member and i was copied. it's from the present of metropolitan utilities district. i thought it was a very thoughtful record. >> we will put it in the record, absolutely. >> great. >> doctor, bear with me because not am i one of the newest committees -- idol, with the scientific scientific background that you possess or the administrator possesses, so it's going to be very important that you visit with me and easily

understood terminology. okay? to start out with in response to a previous question by senator cardin, you talked about some research that had been done in relative to chromium-6 with animals. and then you talked about a factor of any factor of this. i want you to put that in language that i can understand. what are you telling me there, that they were exposed to the exceedingly high levels that we have not found in drinking water yet? >> the levels which the animals were exposed in drinking water haven't seen in human populations, not in this country for example, but in china. where i was of the same concentration have been used. >> have you found any drinking water anywhere in the united states that has hit those levels? >> i have not seen that in drinking water, but i'm not an

expert in all the drinking water that has been measured and as administrator jackson has been saying, they are doing a major study now to try to understand the extent of contamination of drinking water by chromium-6. >> okay. so what you're saying to me now in understandable language is that we exposed or somehow rats, mice got exposed to these exceedingly high levels, at least to your knowledge we haven't found it in any drinking water in the united states, and they had a problem. >> there are some studies that are within a factor of 10 of some levels that have been reported in the united states spent when he is a factor of 10, 10 times -- >> right, the levels that are animals got were 10 times higher than some reported levels that people in the united states might be drinking. >> okay. >> i think it's very important that we try to extrapolate from animal studies to humans,

animals have to drink a much higher concentration than people do to get the same amount into their bodies. and that's the kind of difficult concept but when you go to the doctor and he takes a blood sample, he is measuring a certain amount of chemical in your blood. in order to get the same amount of chemical in the blood for example, of a rat or mice, you often have to expose them to a much higher dose. >> so we have rat or mouse studies out there that they are also quite a number of human studies that have demonstrated associate significant, significant associations between chromium in drinking water, high levels of chromium in thinking water, and cancer are another thing is that at least in certain cases as i mentioned for trichloroethylene, when you use water in an enclosed environment like a shower or logic of certain chemicals can be become a ball to and then you can inhale them. ..

what scientific analysis or study did your folks rely upon that would cause you to take that step? and i'm not -- this is not a trick question. i'm really looking for a list of the studies they reviewed. >> well, sir, we can get you a

list of information. what we did is encourage utilities to monitor. when this chrome six steady mike came out i met with almost a dozen centers in the capital. many of them from the cities of the populace. one of the things i committed to was giving technical assistance to utilities on how to monitor, so as they got it it could be the result of a peer reviewed methodology. the methodology and guidance that we issued was based on a peer reviewed method, changed slightly to make it useful to the utilities, but not in no way that we believe required another peer review, and it was an attempt to make sure that people had, from the federal government, what we believed would be the next pri in step. >> here is the challenge with what you just told me. number one, i wonder what those studies are, and i'm going to be anxious to get that list. i will request that you provide that to all of us here. but number two, when you

described the action that you are expecting them to take, it is not very simple. this is a utility, for example, that complies with all clean -- exceeds all of clean drinking water standards. if i'm not mistaken they had a ticket to another part of the country to get this testing. so i just want to make sure that before we send them off during that we have a sound scientific basis to do that. thank you, madam chair. >> center. >> that you. i listened for information that can help us do better at protecting our citizens i guess if we stop putting out fires

it would be job crushing for firemen. and if we stopped writing laws it would be job crushing for people working here. i take it that neither one of those things would be acceptable and that it is hard to understand whether or not there is any benefit to putting people into regulation at all because if we didn't do these programs a, it would hurt health and be, i guess it would be called job crushing. i don't get it. when these things are dressed up in that fashion we are off topic. we are not discussing the reality of health damage here, and what we are doing is we are

simply overriding, saying look, the epa scientists, court decisions don't mean anything. if we do these regulations it might help my kids mark, my grandchildren, everybody else have better health than it would be the final job crushing. it may save lives, but if we stop regulating then we would have a net gain. i don't quite understand that. the same thinking administrators jackson and director birnbaum temporarily allows epa for monitoring for 30 of the unregulated ten minutes in our drinking water. in light of the success of other programs at epa with the public

-- could the public benefit from a targeted increase in monitoring unregulated contaminants? >> senator, i agree the public has a fundamental right to know what is in their drinking water, water supply. increased targeted monitoring would be useful in helping us to identify emerging threats, things that we don't know about, but we need to know for future generations. and it should be done in a common-sense fashion, always balancing the burden on water systems against the potential threat to human and public health. >> director birnbaum, do you have a different view? >> only that i would agree. i think i certainly, as a citizen as we all are in this room, with very much what you like to know what it is that i am drinking. >> you know, the shocking thing is that these programs developed almost in a reflex action.

it is in response to a condition. it is a response to the superfund site that we found up in massachusetts, created the jimmy fund. it is in response to crippling things for our children and the health of our elderly, those who are most fragile. but those things get no credit. the fact that i present here for you in living color that there are things that help people live longer. and i hope they will keep on doing what they have been doing in the halls of science because maybe i can reach maturity without further degradation. [laughter] a hearing in this committee two years ago, i pointed out that

only 6 percent of the water systems that broke the law were fined or punished by state or federal officials. don't object, senator and coffee, please. at this rate it provides little incentive to comply with the law. the head of epa enforcement assured me that a new policy would bring more systems into compliance. how many systems have come into compliance since this testimony from 2,009? >> well, sir, because of active enforcement by epa, back in january 2010 we had almost nine dozen systems that had potential serious violations of the safe drinking water act. we have identified only 6,466 as of january of this year, so we are down by over 3,000 systems, but that is the result of pro-active work by epa and state

and local governments to really crack down when we find violations of our nation's safe drinking water act requirements. >> madam chairman, i have other questions that i will submit in writing, but again, i wonder when i hear statements made here that talk to the particularly dark side of things, job crushing, etc., i wish we could examine it from the front side. how many lives would you like to save? how many kids would you like not to have difficulties with their health in getting to school and being like other kids? we don't seem to start on that side. we start on the side that says job crushing. thank you very much. >> thank you so much. next we will hear from senator barrasso. >> thank you very much, madam chairman. as a physician who has taken care of families for 24, 25 years, i know how important it

is to work on preventative programs to keep people healthy. i would contend that america's physical health and our fiscal health both power physical and fiscal health are both tied to rulings out of the environment protection agency. so i find it interesting, and i have been trying to stick to the topic of water, that from the -- from inside the epa january 28 of this year 2011 activists hope vermont t mdl sets a precedent for weighing climate impacts with regard to water quality requirements. this is all about water. so when i look at this, administrator jackson, considering that the epa has recently allowed t mdl to be usd in consideration in the effects of climate change, specifically with the lake in vermont. one of the members of our committee is from vermont.

my question is how many of these 43,000 on the a and a list as approved? because this is one that is approved. how many could be revised in the future to consider the effects of climate change? that is what this is all about, using climate change as a way to regulate water. we have seen the state impact. one of our members, when you look at a list of how many t md else there are by state, people say, well, many more than we have in mike wyoming. >> senator, the work on the late -- lake champlain, under the clean water act, this is not a clean water act issue is a issue that has been going on through several administrations. i am not sure that i can confirm that tmdl has been approved. the goal of the tmdl process

under the clean water act is to lessen, and lessen the amount of contamination that goes into our water bodies. lake champlain is much prized and is having trouble with nutrients and algae. it is becoming -- there are pockets that are dying out. and so your specific question about climate is secondary regardless of what is said to the overall goal of the clean water act and the tmdl process, which is to protect the quality. >> i guess the question comes down to, can something be reopened once there has been a, you know, something given? and that is the concern that i will continue to rise with the committee. retroactively going after something that has already been granted. the president had an executive order stating that agencies should consider when taking a look at the cost and benefits he said, values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and disruptive and

packs, i think it is easy to at measure unemployment. we know that our debt has gone up $3 trillion in the last three years. 3 million more unemployed in the last two years. we know burdensome regulations to have an impact on jobs, and it is quantifiable. my question is, is the language in the president's executive order, does it allow you to basically use anything you want in terms of making -- saying benefits outweigh the costs? >> i think the president's far reaching executive order makes clear that there are some things that are hard to price. science may be good, but i don't know how you price the ability to try to forestall a child who may not get autism if they are not exposed to contaminated water. i think the language in that order is about those things where we can be protected for a reasonable amount of money to make sure our children and future generations are not kenny takes. >> do you have -- one of the

comments in the president's order included modified streamlined repealed regulations. either additional expansions the you are planning? >> as the president said, we have been very transparent with the regulations that are coming. many as a result of court actions, many regulations that were thrown out as illegal, proposed by the last administration. huge clean air act backlog of regulations, public health regulations. the president was very clear in that state of the union that we will be very smart about regulation, but we will not back away from creating and enforcing those regulations that have resulted in 92% of americans having clean water and that our air quality has gotten better, even as our gdp has grown to under 4 percent. >> final question. 132 economically significant

federal government regulations, meaning the impact of $100 million per year and that we now have a 40% more federal regulations in this time under president obama even then we did under president clinton. the work force has grown 16% and mr. obama's first two years in office. 276,000 private -- private employment has continued to fall. any idea how many private sector jobs have been lost because of these increased regulations? >> senator, i think the reason recession, all people riegger agree, was a result of lack of regulation of the housing market that caused the collapse of our housing market. so the public health regulations under the clean water act and clean air act, i have not seen one of the industry's claim that it was those regulations that somehow caused the housing market to implode.

>> thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you. senator merkley. >> thank you, madam chairman. i know you are familiar with the bull run reservoir, which is a remote basin in the cascade mountains that humans are not allowed access to and is the principal water source for the metro region. you all have worked with us to establish a monitoring regime for corpus peridium. that data has been compiled under that monitoring regime. the city will be seeking a variants to establish the appropriate circumstances based on that data and this pristine water source. i believe epa has not delegated to the state of oregon responsibility for enforcing that part of the clean water act. so i believe the city will be applying to the state. and so, if the state approves of

variants will the epa, does that kind of settle the question? or does the epa considered the possibility of overturning it? >> senator, thank you for your strong interest in protecting that watershed. my commitment is that epa will work to support the state to work closely with the state on the variants determination and help them and looking at the conditions. we don't expect that we will be working in opposition to them. >> thank you. under next trip to the northwest i continue to extend the offer to see that extraordinary green infrastructure firsthand. and it then turning tat chromium-6, the epa current standard of 100 parts per billion is quite different than the california standard of 0.02 parts per billion team, and a proposed standard of 0.02 parts per billion. there is a 5,000 times difference between current epa

and proposed california. do you have any sense where epa's guidance will end up in this spectrum? >> yes, it will be responsible -- irresponsible for me to guess the number at this point. there are a number of analyses that we do, and we certainly have to look at cost and feasibility and the particular type of a smaller system in terms of public health. it is too soon for me to tell. >> any insights on that, dr.? >> i think we need to see what the science is telling us. as administered jackson is telling us, it is currently out for peer review, the large assessment of the health effects and risk assessments. i think when that is completed and the peer review is completed on that, epa will be able to move forward with decision making. >> thank you, and i appreciate the rigorous scientific process that you are going through to try to reach a decision that is

correct for the health of citizens in our nation. we do have a relative in oregon. one of the tests that were in your earlier sampling across the nation was from oregon ducks out the -- that found some x-amount of chromium folks are kind of interested in dialogue on what is healthy and appropriate. thank you. >> just two little pieces of information for the colleague. we are considering the bill on the floor, and they expect up to three votes around five or six. just thought people would want to know that. early evening. the other thing is, just want to put in the record a document from the office of environmental health hazard assessment from california. the last days of the schwarzenegger administration they strengthened the proposed

drinking water public health school for chrome-6 based on the threats to children and other sensitive populations. we'll put that in the record without objection. >> thank you, madam chair. i appreciate your testimony very much. i don't think there is any question at all that we don't need to prevent contaminants in drinking water. again, i think everyone in this room is 100% with you. dr. linda birnbaum, after listening, i agree, everyone agrees that at some level chromium-6 causes cancer. the problem is figuring out what that level is. that is so important because it seems like -- well, there is. there is a finite amount of money we have to deal with these problems, and if we unnecessarily wretched down standards that become very, very expensive to do there is no money for these other things.

now, i don't know at this point, you know, based on the science if the cities that were, you know, investigated, if that is a problem. i can take you right after hundreds of areas throughout the united states that have leaky pipes, every time it rains hard the sewers overflow and the passing surrounding is a huge problem. again, there is no money for that or not enough money. we are not doing a good a job as we can. it is important we get this right. also, the unintended consequences as you treat for these things, the chemicals that you use to get it out, disposing of the, you know, what you are getting out. i have a problem with the methodology. there is a lot of criticism from the city's about the environmental working group. is it true, ms. jackson, that in milwaukee this was just from a tap, some place within the city?

>> yes, i believe what the ewg said they did was went to random taps, one in each city. >> and again, they came back and logically -- i am an optometrist, not an expert on these things, but i do understand if you logically really wanted to find out what was going on you would do similar to what -- you would at least sample many sources within the city. also, as they did, they came back and sampled the intake area. they sampled within the system, and a sample of the discharge. dr. birnbaum, what do you think about that type of methodology? that makes no sense at all, does it? again, many of these cities were not notified until they read about it in the newspaper. all of a sudden they have this possible public, you know, issue on their hands that was done from a single source.

>> i think that the ewg report is what in scientific terms we would call a bodices generating. it proposes that there might be a problem. we need, and the epa is beginning to get that information. we need some kind of statistically based sampling of water supplies in this country in order to understand. a single sample, you really don't know where the contamination is coming from and even if it is real. it needs to be repeated. >> you never do things in that manner. the problem is the press takes that, and they don't know what you have just stated. so all of a sudden it becomes possible. so it is a real problem. it is hard for those of us who want to help when you have situations like that. it is hard to have confidence in the system as you go forward. in the testimony, oklahoma city asked for the methodology and evidently has not been able to

obtain it. do you have a reason that you won't give the methodology to them? >> i believe you are talking about the environmental working group methodology. she doesn't -- we. >> i'm sorry. >> that is why we decided rather than to do that to offer a methodology to water systems that could be used that have been peer reviewed that we believed was state of the science. these are very low levels for chromium. >> i understand, but i believe that they should have the right. you have essentially implied that something is going on. they should have the right to have the methodology that you used. i would very much like to see that also. i think the community would very much like to see that also so that we can see, you know, your credibility is on the line here. for us to have -- for you to have credibility, for us to have faith in what you're doing i think we need to understand, you

know, kind of, your working process in doing that. >> to qualifications. we have given a methodology that we believe is the one that should be used for systems who want to do their own testing, and we have recommended that a reasonable next step. the second thing i would like to say, the ewg study alone might have been something that we could dismiss. the important piece of scientific information is that we are in the middle of of peer review that shows that chrome-6, which we previously thought was not a problem and water is a problem in water and causes cancer. and if that is true, that is a game-changing piece of information which will likely mean we have to address it through changing our standards. and that science was going on before the ewg report came out. it has been out there for quite some time, and the only reason we are not able to finalize it is we are going through a peer review, a very important step to make sure we have this right.

>> well, i would like to see, again, the science -- well, the lack of science, i think, that the working group used and would like a copy of that. at think oklahoma city is entitled to that also. thank you. >> i think, senator, that you will be able to ask the head of the ewg to provide that for you when he testifies on the next panel. >> very good. i will do that. >> thank you. a couple of points. pg&e, which is every utility, paid millions of dollars in the settlement to the residents of hinckley, this is a stockholder corporation because they -- levels of chrome-6. huge losses. they settled the matter for hundreds of millions of dollars. so there are a lot of different things out there. and just want to say, i don't know what you are talking about when you say it is a hypothesis based

study. does that mean that it poses an important question? is that what that means? a hypothesis based study, what is your definition? >> i think it means we have to look further. so if somebody says it is a snapshot in time, would you buy that as what they have showed us? >> yes, i think it is a snapshot in time. whether you would find the same thing if you measured the same tap water next month, i don't know. >> well, obviously it is a snapshot. >> madam chair -- >> and i think when you say how about this is based, i don't know what that means. i would appreciate it if you would just remind for my position here, you are saying it is a study that should be taken further. >> i would agree. at think it is a study that raises the question, do we have a problem here. >> okay. senator udall.

>> thank you, madam chair. i really appreciate you holding this hearing. the point that i think senator lautenberg made, and i think,. [laughter] , you also made, is one that in the case of doing cleanup and trying to extract chemicals or contaminants were things from our drinking water there is a whole job growth side of this. rather than being job killing or job crushing, you actually have an entrepreneurial shipside, and i think you mentioned that a little bit. we have seen in new mexico small businesses helping to solve the drinking water problems. several companies in new mexico are actually getting back into manufacturing, making things in

america. here, we had one, madam chair, a company testified. the name was mike knox. they testified before this committee last year about their new process sees that they were getting into. so i think it is important to emphasize that probably every state around this committee table has small businesses who are working on these kinds of things, and i think -- i very much appreciate you making that point in your testimony. one of the questions. and let me just say to preface this question, new mexico has some big challenges when it comes to both the contaminants you are talking about, the perchlorate and that chromium-6. we have seen in these environmental working group report, chromium-6 found that levels above one part per billion in albuquerque, over 20 times the newly proposed standard in california.

and that was the eighth highest level in the investigation. and perchlorate also found in ground water monitoring wells in national labs in new mexico on white sands missile range. the first question i would like to ask the minister jackson, what are the major sources of chromium in drinking water? how did it get there and what can or should have been done to prevent chromium from making its way into drinking water sources? >> well, as you heard in the opening statement of dr. birnbaum, there are a number of processes, everything from plating and canning operation. it can be found as a contaminant in things like school, so it will show up in the emissions from a coal-fired plant or even a potential oil fired plant. also naturally occurring in the ground, like arsenic, another pollutant that we regulate and

have made tremendous progress in your state, senator, but not without having to work with lots of systems and with the state very closely. and we are also looking at the potential for crime and chrome-6 to come from fixtures. we don't have enough information to know about that. last but not least, very important for us to work with the providers to understand whether it comes from any of our d chlorination, disinfection activities, whether that actually increases the likelihood of three transforming into chrome-6 to read ..

>> you're enforcement effort to make sure that they're held accountable and that the polluters pay the price of this kind of thing. would you agree with that? and does your enforcement operation try to move forward with those kinds of actions to send a message to the community that, you know, you shouldn't be doing this. you shouldn't be contaminating drinking water? >> congress long ago embraced the polluter pay. our groundwater and our drinking water belongs to us and that as much as possible industry should prevent pollution and help to clean it up and where we are now is that we are learning about emerging problems and as we do,

we have to speak straightforwardly to the american people and to industry about the need to not take them for granted or look the other way as these problems emerge. they are not happy stories. but we don't get healthier by ignoring them. >> thank you. i'll have other questions that i'll submit for the record. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you. i want to put in the record because senator bozeman raised the issue of cost which i think is essential. we need to know cost benefit. i'm going to put in the record an analysis by the national cancer institute that found in '06, the direct cost of cancer cancer care in america, 104 billion and they have the numbers for '05, the indirect cost in lost time and productivity at 1035 billion so you add that together, $240 billion a year. so it is critical, i think, that we look at the cost of this from

every -- every perspective, the cost benefit. and i'll put that in the record. and now it is our time to thank you both very much for being here, for sharing your morning with us. close to almost afternoon. and i think that we'll be seeing a lot more of both of of as you move forward in congress. thank you very much. and we'll call up our next panel, mr. ken cook, the president of the environmental working group. ms. carrie lewis from the milli milwaukee water books was unable to be here but due to weather was enable to be here. then mr. steven d. lewis, the city manager of city of norman, due to severe weather, mr. lewis was unable to travel but he is

putting his statement in the record without objection and i know we will have him on the phone; is that correct? he cannot be on the phone? okay. we will not do that but i'm sure i will give extra time to senator inhofe to ask questions. really, i will. so you'll get 10 minutes for your questions. mr. chuck murray, general manager of fairfax water, dr. thomas burke, associate dean for public health practice and training johns hopkins bloomberg school of public health. so i think all of you probably were very interested in the first panel and we really need doneed your expertise and i ask that we come to order, and those leaving please do so quietly and we will start with you, mr. cook, president environmental working group. welcome. >> chairman boxer -- >> excuse me, let me interrupt for just a minute here. unfortunately, i will not be able to stay. i want to hear all of your opening statements.

my concern is that you address the unfunded mandate portion of this. those of us who have been mayors of cities -- and i would identify with the remarks that were made by senator johanns are very much concerned about this so i would like you to address that during the course of your statements. thank you, madam chairman. >> okay. i'm sorry, mr. cook, but we welcome you again. >> thank you very much. chairman boxer and ranking member senator inhofe and distinguished members of the committee, i very much appreciate the opportunity to testify today. we have prepared testimony, of course, to submit for the record. i'd like to briefly summarize that and if i may address some of the issues that have come up in the discussion about our study. because they are very important ones. let me start off by saying we have been working on drinking water issues at the environmental working group for a long time. the reason we looked into chrome-6 the reason we formed the hypothesis because we prepared since 2005 the only

source that you can go to look across the country. a very large database as many of the drinking water contestimony nation reports that have been filed by utility of state agencies that we could assemble. when we looked at this set of data we were able to determine that there were a number of cities that had detected and reported as epa required total chromium levels and our hypothesis was that if there were a number of cities that had total chromium it was very likely if anyone bothered to look we would find hexavalent chromium. california is the only state have tested hexvalent and california from a scientific standpoint is driving the nation in terms of trying to understand the implications of very low levels of ingestion of

hexavalent chromium as a car sinjin. we recognized and have stated in the study throughout its coverage that this puts water utilities in a bind. this is not a contaminant that they have put into the water. when we briefed the trade associations and called in advance to a number of the utilities we made it very cleared that we recognized that this was not their problem of the utilities we contacted before releasing the study, norman was the only one -- norman, oklahoma, was the only one that really understood that this came from geological sources. but when we went ahead and submitted the tests, the samples, we filed a protocol that was published the day we published the report. it's in great detail. we've made it available to everyone. we used the methodology that epa is now recommending for water utilities who wish to follow it because it was approved by the environmental protection agency for hexavalent chromium.

the health guidance that has been recommended most recently for california. we were only able to conduct one sample per city in the time and with the funds we had available but there has been new testing that has been conducted by a number of the cities and has been made public. and here is what they found. in honolulu, they have reported 11 samples. we don't know the methodology at least from what's before me for certain. we don't know the exact location of where the samples were taken. but they found between .32 and . -- and 4.0 points per billion. we found 2 parts per billion. some of their samples were higher and some were lower in the case of madison wisconsin, they found in four wells that they tested .4 to 1.79 parts per billion. we found in our study 1.58. again, within the range.

milwaukee tested and found .19 part per billion to part.22 per billion. we found .2 right in the middle. in the case of normal we have not seen the results yet. we look forward to it. in the case of bend, oregon, they have also reported results after our study. they tested four samples of source water from the avian facility, .25 to .65. we found .78. that's the only city that's found slightly lower levels than the levels we found. thank you, madam chairman. thank you, it was very helpful. and now we'll hear from ms. diane vanderhei. make sure you turn on your mic. >> sorry about that. good morning, madam chairman, ranking member inhofe and the rest of the committee. my name is diane vand de high i'm executive director of the metropolitan water agencies.

it's an organization of the nation's largest drinking water systems serving over 130 million people with safe drinking water. terry lewis, superintendent of water for the city of milwaukee was called to testify but because of weather she couldn't be here. from the point of view from the drinking water utility committee and about the recent report from the ewg group that detected traces of chromium-6 in the drinking water of 31 communities. like the members of the committee, members are committed to ensuring the provision of safe healthy drinking water to the public. as you can see from carrie's written testimony, milwaukee water works is a leader in testing its water for unregulated contaminants and frequently interacts with both epa and the customers regarding water quality. in fact, milwaukee tests for over 500 contaminants and that

information is put on their public website when they're only required to -- required to monitor for 90. so they go above and beyond ones required by federal law and state law in terms of monitoring. they're very open to the public in terms of what they find. you'll find with the rest of the testimony the question is, what do you tell them about what you found? but even with the collaboration, the chromium-6 issue has been particularly difficult for milwaukee and many other drinking water systems cited in the report. first, it was a big surprise to many utilities to find out about the ewg report through newspaper reports. most of them would have liked to have a phone call saying here's a heads up. this is what we found and this is what's coming out. furthermore, the reports methodology of a single sample with no sense of where and when when the sample should not draw broad inferences of water utilities quality. while utilities want their customers to know what is in

their water we must also understand what reported levels of contaminants often in the parts per billion or parts per trillion level mean for the public. this is where epa comes in. utilities count on the agency to conduct solid peer-reviewed research to inform us about which contaminants at what levels we should focus on to protect public health and meet water quality standards. the regulatory process put in place by the safe drinking water act amendments of 1996 was designed to do this. and we believe the process as designed works well. this is why we have some concerns about the guidance epa released last month to check for chromium-6. while we agree that the public must be made aware of harmful contaminants in their drinking water before encouraging utilities testing the screening methodology should be approved by epa and the public health impacts of the contaminants should be established. additionally the january 11th

guidance recommends using california-certified laboratories to analyze water samples for chromium-6 at a reporting level at .06 parts per billion and a five-hour holding time, a five-day holding time. although california's method is only approved for reporting level of 1 part per billion and 24-hour holding time so there's a problem if you're sending utilities to california laboratories to have their samples tested and the guidance is saying there's a 5-day holding time and then the method is only approved for 24 hours, the quality control and what's the use of that data comes into question. so that needs to be sorted out between epa, its guidance and the states and the utilities. what is the method they should be using? moreover, once water systems test for chromium-6, it is unclear how to communicate the results to the public. and we've covered that. therefore, we would urge epa to continue moving forward with its research into chromium-6 which will result in additional data

that can form any appropriate regulation through the safe drinking water act. the best public health protection will result if epa follows the existing regulatory framework that was designed by congress through the 1996 amendments. the drinking water community will support and comply with the standards that are the product of this established process as we always have. thank you, madam chairman. >> okay. mr. chuck murray, fairfax water, we thank you so much for being here. general manager. >> thank you madam chairman. members of the committee, my name is charles murray. i'm general manager of fairfax water, virginia's largest drinking water utility and one of the 25 largest drinking water utilities in the nation. fairfax water is a nonprofit public water authority governed by a 10-member board of directors who are appointed by the board of supervisors of fairfax county. fairfax water provides retailer wholesale service to nearly 1.7 million people in northern virginia. that translates into 1.7 million

reasons to provide drinking water of the highest quality. i'm testifying today on behalf of the american water works association or awwa. we welcome the opportunity to speak to the drinking water issues that are before the committee. this is an international nonprofit scientific and educational association of professionals dedicated to safe drinking water. we continually support drinking water regulations that are developed through a transparent process based on the best available science and that provide meaningful public health protection in an affordable manner. two of the key issues before the issue are hexavalent chromium and proposals to mandate regulation within a year. we believe it's in the public interest to address these concerns with these contaminants within the regulatory framework that is already in place. as you know, the safe drinking water act mandates rigorous process for evaluating risk to public health and determining what risk and actions are appropriate. the act requires that the

regulatory process use the best available peer-reviewed science. a principle that this administration strongly endorsed. these principles are critical to ensure that actual risks are addressed and unlimited resources are devoted for complete information. should funds be misdirected on risks that have not been fully or appropriately vetted, a community's resources cannot be recovered to address the genuine risks and other important community needs. as i stated earlier, we support drinking water regulation developed through a transparent process based on the best science and provide meaningful health, protection and affordable manner. this sound science must not be compromised. the safe drinking water act forwards the environmental protection agency a robust transparent methodology upon which it can evaluate, propose and promulgate regulation. fortunately, the proposed legislation on hexavalent chromium seem to discount the principles of the safe drinking water act the same principles

the administration is committed. epa's recent actions of the tone, delivery and content of epa's response to the ewg's report regarding hexavalent chromium imply that regulatory change is an urgent and foregone conclusion. epa has gone outside the structure set forth in the safe drinking water act which places drinking water utilitys in an untenable position. these actions cause me great concern. epa's drinking water utilities collects samples throughout the treatment process to better understand the currents and concentration of hexavalent chromium that. however, the agency is not afforded itself the benefit of the data yielded in the sample collection because there's no national repository for the data. now, the processes established under the safe drinking water act been followed, the monitoring would have been conducted under the unregulated contaminant monitoring rule and would resolve any issues related to the analytical methodology and data collection. as it stands, the community now must decide absent critical information such as a clear

understanding of the actual risks associated with the presence of very low levels of hexavalent chromium if it should expend the resources to conduct this monitoring. and should a drinking water utility conduct this monitoring, how you will it convey the results and its meaning to its customers. at fairfax water we made the decision to monitor it was based on the level of concern from our customers. we monitor and found one of our water sources has no detectable level of hexavalent chromium. and the other source the level was found at the monitoring -- at the reporting limit of the method. so extremely low levels. but the real question that i'm constantly asked to answer is, is the water safe? is the level of hexavalent chromium or the level of the next new contaminant of interest is the water going to harm me or my family? these are valid questions, ones that maybe answered by a consistent, robust, transparent

framework. so you may ask, how do we, fairfax water, answer these questions? we posted our results to our website and explained that there's a process in place at epa to evaluate the risks and make decisions about the appropriate level of regulation to address public health concerns. we explain that epa is currently reviewing the risks and will finalize its risk assessment for hexavalent chromium later this year. at that time epa can make a determination if further regulatory action is warranted. we acknowledge that the processes for determining the actual risk for human health, from different areas can frustratingly slow. science can be complicated, however, it's only by applying -- applying methodical peer-reviewed studies we can know where actual risk lies. we encourage the congress to allow the unregulated contaminant monitoring rule, the contaminant candidate list and

the six-year review processes created in this 1996 amendments to the safe drinking water act be allowed to work. epa and afwa and its members are committed to supporting the act and these tools to help make sound, regulatory decisions. further, we pledge to continue to provide field data, participate in studies related to these processes and make our methodologies transparent. we realize these are tough times for the federal budget. >> i'm sorry, sir. could you just finish that thought? >> bottom line is the congress does not need to legislate drinking water. the safe drinking act was amended in 1986 to provide a transparent method for selecting substances for regulation. >> okay. thank you very much. dr. burke, i want you to know that senator cordin is very proud that you're here today. i'm going to put his introduction of you into the record but i think i should say a couple of words about you. you're from the johns hopkins

bloomberg school of public health. thank you, senator. you serve as a professor in the department of health policy and management, associate dean of public health practice and training, director of both the john hopkins center for excellence and environmental public health tracking and the center for excellence in environmental health practice. you're the chair of the national academy of sciences committee on improving risk analysis along with positions on several commissions and boards and lots of other things. an award winner and we welcome you. >> thank you, senator. thank you, senator. it's good to be here. and i've submitted written testimony. i would like to hit some of the high points of the discussion, though, and summarize. as you mentioned, i chair the national academy panel on how epa does risk assessment. and today i'd like to address three things. one, the broad issue of chrome-6 in water, secondly our current approaches to risk assessment and finally leave you with some

recommendations as we think about how we protect drinking water in the future. first of all, being a professor, i had to give you some pictures and some slides. and at the end of my testimony there are some pictures that showed just how mobile chromium is in the environment and although hudson county new jersey didn't make it into the movie, certainly as a cromate capital throughout the nation new jersey grappled with this issue of chromium moving through the environment and it is very soluable and it is not surprising that we're beginning to find as we look. perhaps most relevant today is that i led the state's efforts to investigate the chromium slag and also to look at drinking water and conducted some of the first tests of toxics in drinking water. to the issue of can we do it, is it feasible? we have made great progress in reducing toxic chemicals in the water. for you the current epa standard for chromium in drinking water is outdated. it does not reflect current

science. because our understanding has evolved as you've heard today. and it has little argument today that chromium-6 is a car sinjin -- carcigin. we assumed the chromium-6 the water soluable of chromium would be present in the nation's drinking water and indeed we're beginning to understand that evidence. this is a wakeup call. but we have broader issues. the challenges of chemical pollutants in drinking water go far beyond that very narrow risk that epa now regulates. we've learned that virtually anything we down our drains shows up in low levels in our tap water. from personal care products to fuel additives to toxics we know drinking water contains a complicated mix of chemicals and it's time to redress how we think of these. if you look at the way epa does

its work, one substance at a time, one environmental medium at a time, it takes an awful long time. and, in fact, if we're going to continue this one at a time process, our national academy panel that looked at this said this system is bogged down. sometimes it takes 10 to 20 years for a risk assessment to be completed. there are inherent uncertainties in the science. and they've made risk assessments a convenient target for those who seek to avoid regulation or the cost of remediation. and we've witnessed these battles over mtbe or color ate, arsenic and now chromium-6. unfortunately, raising doubt about public health impacts has become a successful strategy for delaying action. as a former state regulator, i'm a realist. i understand the concerns about cost. there are no quick solutions to removing toxic substances from our water. our tap water reflects our way of life. but if we're going to be

responsible and preserve our drinking water resources, we have to move forward. so i'd like to conclude with a brief list of recommendations for the committee to consider. first, this one at a time 20-year process is bogged down. we have to be more efficient. we need to shift from reaction to chemicals in the water to prevention of contamination. we have to improve the protection of our surface and groundwater resources. and we have to expand state and regional water monitoring efforts. the environmental working group did a great service, i think, by conducting this evaluation but it's unfortunate that our states and our epa regions don't have the capacity to conduct this kind of monitoring. we have to recognize the potential cumulative impact of this mixture of multiple contaminants which many have with health development and we

have to advance our drinking water technologies to better remove contaminants and their precursors. controlling pathogens has been a cornerstone of public health. to prevent infectious disease, now we must also recognize that monitoring and reducing chemical contamination in our drinking water is an essential component of our public health efforts to prevent chronic disease. thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today. and i'm anxious to answer questions. >> thank you very much. i would like to address our two water people. i first got started in mar rin county as a county supervisor so i was pretty close to the water district people and the whole issue of drinking water. and you're both saying very clearly congress, keep out of this. this has nothing to do with you. let's just have the epa do whatever they do and follow the law. well, let's just set aside for a

minute any kind of who should act and let's say we're just the person in the united states of america who's raising a family who want to make sure when they drink the water it's safe. they don't really care if you, mr. murray, take action on your own 'cause i know you care a lot about this and you might just say, we're not happy with our quality. we're going to move forward, without the federal government. they don't care if the state government does it. they don't care if the federal government -- they don't care if the environmental working group brings to light all -- they want the water safe. so let me tell you my view because you're not going to be happy with it but in the interest of fairness here, i believe that in the '96 was, the clean -- the safe drinking water act, the rewrite of the water act, what congress wanted to happen was for the epa to begin to move on these emerging contaminants and they expected that epa would move on these

emerging contaminants. they didn't expect that not one emerging contaminant would be regulated from '96 as we sit here. not one thing has happened. nothing. and it reminds me of what happened when senator feinstein threw up her hands when she looked at the exposure of our kids to phthalates and she said i'm not waiting for the consumer act to act. they're not acting and we're going to do it. and, in essence, we did it. and at that time i said, if we don't see the national government implementing the laws, then congress is going to take it upon itself. now, in the 1996 act, congress is the one who said, you shall regulate arsenic.

because i could tell you knowing what i see i don't think arsenic -- we could have had the same fight over that. now, i understand from your point of view that you would like things go as they are. but i want to say this. as the author of the bill to regulate -- have epa set a standard for color ate and i don't say what it should be, i just say it should be based on science and chrome-6 based on science and someone from california where we have set goals and standards for these two very dangerous contaminants and i would put in the record -- because i know we all want science. i've got it. i've got the science here. some people are asking for it for clorate and i put it in the record these scientific studies what percholorate does to babies and fetuses in the womb. i'm saying to you and to my

water people out there, please work with us. now, epa is going to set a standard we hope for percholorate and they're going to do it based on the science. and i hope that you will work with us. if, in fact, you support the '96 law as you said you do and you're calling for regular order, that's what epa is doing, regular order. they're also engaged in regular order when it comes to chrome-6. they said what the environmental working group did was a snapshot of one day and i think mr. cook has given great credibility today when he compares what the systems are doing with his report a. they were pretty much on target there in his snapshot. i just want to say to all of you, and i will withhold my question for the next round that i hope you will work with us and not against us. because we represent the same people. and whether the epa has moved

forward because we set a standard and we show why or they are moving forward because they've seen some science that isn't definitive but is giving them a sense of it, i said you to work with us, not against us. we're your friends. we want -- i don't believe -- i don't like unfunded mandates. senator inhofe and i agree. we want to make it possible for you to do your work. but i told you what the cost of cancer is to our society from the national cancer institute. you're looking at upwards of $200 billion a year. so to say that you support, you know, the drinking water act in regular order is great but what you don't say there hasn't been one thing done by the epa except what congress demanded which was set a standard for arsenic and now we're going to move forward with percholorate i hope and

chrome-6. because if we don't do it, i'll tell you what, the states are going to start to do it and pretty soon the cities are going to say, why aren't we doing it because it's their people that are going to say, protect us from chrome-6. i will definitely give you a chance to answer in the next round but i want to give senator bozeman a chance here. >> thank you, madam chair again, i think that we all agree at some level that this is a serious problem. the question is, is what level that is. help me -- now with california, their level, their suggested level is .02 at this point? okay. but there is no -- there's no -- you have riverside, you know, much higher than that, but there's no inducement for them to go down to that. that's just a suggested place, you know, to go. i guess -- and then it looked

like that they went from, i think, in the testimony -- they went from .06 to .02 based on your stuff. what i would like, you know, from -- from you, dr. burke, and mr. cook -- i'd really like, you know, the science that you have -- you know, give me a list of stuff, you know, that i need to look at so we can see where we need to go. i also think that it really makes a huge difference that if we're talking about it -- riverside being at 1.69 now, what is the cost -- is it going to have to incur to go down to .06 and what benefit are we going to get out of that? and also what is the cost going from .06 down to .02? and i don't mean to be rude but the idea of them going to .06 --

or from .06 to .02 based on your study where it's a tap in a city throughout -- i don't think that you all would do that, dr. burke, you know, in the sense that you truly were trying to -- now again, i understand what you were doing and things, but the problem is, is that the sweeping generalizations come out of, you know, a scientific effort that you generally i don't think, dr. burke, would make, you know, based on an effort like that. in other words, that's pretty shaky. so i guess, again, i'd like to see, you know, good studies, what you've got there. somebody at some point, madam chair, i really would like to know the cost -- you know, the cost for the bang and the buck as opposed to, you know, as we go to those very ratchet -- you know, why don't we just say

zero? you know and yet there's a reason we don't say zero because it is expensive to do these. there's a finite amount of money and, you know, you have to have some practicality in all of this. can you comment on that? i think you understand what i'm trying to say, not in a very good way. >> i absolutely understand as a former regulator. we have to be practical. we have to move forward in public health protection but we have to face the realities of our current limitations with pollution. and there's -- there's an approach to that. the approach is not to cite the cost as a reason not to respond to the science. the approach is to get folks together and say, what can we practically do to reduce population exposure and how can we move forward? now, on other pollutants like benzine that's in gasoline it's all over in the environment the goal is zero because that's a

well recognized carsinogin. but what we shouldn't be doing is throwing out the science because of the cost. they are two separate issues and as we move forward we have to acknowledge that and have practical steps and ultimately it's going to come down to protecting the source water and doing what's feasible as we have done with other pollutants and you raise a very important point. >> i agree you don't throw out of the science because of the cost. but you do have good science to go where you're going as opposed to emotion, you know, and not using commonsense. >> absolutely. >> and sometimes we see that. and that's a real concern. >> absolutely. yes, sir. >> senator, thank you -- i mean, i think you put your finger on it. but i think most americans don't understand that understand the

safe drinking water act, epa routinely concludes what a safe level would be, and they come to that conclusion and publish it. and then the regulated level that they enforce is considerably higher, weaker. precisely because they take into consideration the kinds of concerns that you've mentioned, cost. we have limited resources. and i think that's also what professor burke was getting at. so one of the questions in our study was, is it there? and if i may say, i think if we hadn't looked, there isn't a water utility that's complaining about it now that would have looked on their own. secondly, we said in our report it is a snapshot and the first thing we really need to consider, apart from the science of toxicity that has been discussed so eloquently is how widespread is this?

we need to look more widely. and i think that process is underway now but it's still voluntarily. i mean, we may not get many more samples in or we may. i hope we do. and then we can have this discussion. there's no question that we're not worried about rats getting cancer. that's not why we're studying the animals. we're worried because there's an accumulation of evidence in this case that low-level exposure does pose a risk of cancer in people. and because of that, that's why our study really made the impact that it made. if that science hadn't ripened as far as it hadn't ripened, matured as far as it matured, our study, i think, wouldn't have had any impact. but the fact is there is science. >> thank you, madam chair. >> thank you so much. i want to tell you a story about santa monica, california, a beautiful place if you haven't visited it. senator boozman just on your way out i want to tell you this

quick story. in santa monica, california, they found out they had huge amounts of mtb in the drinking water and the reason they found out is -- no one tested. you could smell it. you could taste it. and it was a very unsafe level. so here's what happened. no one for a period of time could drink the water and sign feinstein and i and members of the house, both republican, a democrat from california we were able to get some funding. we helped them clean it up and now they can drink the water in santa monica. i can tell you that the worst thing we can do for our economy and for everything else is to ignore these issues. i know you don't want to. and i know what you're pressing toward is the science, the feasibility, so on your way out the door i'm going to tell you i'm going to send you scientific report on chrome-6 that was done in california that was done by one of our universities which was the key scientific factor in them setting that low standard. and it's absolutely true.

sometimes you don't go down to zero because you don't have to go down zero and sometimes you have to go down that low. so it's about protecting the health. but i think it's important to note that the epa has to do a cost benefit analysis. they have to in addition to the science. and they also have to make a finding that what they're proposing -- the standard they're proposing is technologically and economically feasible. so i just wanted you to feel better about that. i've been steeped in these things for a long time and i think that the arguments you raise are absolutely appropriate. but i honestly think we have answers to them so i look forward working with you and sending you the study. >> thank you, madam chair. and i appreciate that. again, you have a situation where on the chart several california cities that are, you know, quite high compared to .02 and yet the reality is, the

state, the federal government has not allocated those resources and the question is, is .02 where we want to be at? is .04, .06, whatever. and at this point, that's -- i don't think we really know that. >> right. in california, we've set .02 as a goal and they trussed from 06 from 02 because the uc people found when they -- when they looked at the science and they looked at the babies and they looked at the pregnant women, that that was the level you could assure that they'd be protected. but it's a goal. and because of your point that you're making it has to be technologically economically feasible. and it has to pass a cost-benefit analysis so i honestly think we have the tools at our disposal to do this right, and i thank you for your contribution but i also find it disturbing that not one emerging contaminant has been regulated

since '96. it makes no sense as the cancer rates skyrocket in this country. something is wrong there and all i'm asking for is honesty here from everybody. and if people tell me, we can't afford it, that's my jacob to help you get help that fixing it 'cause i don't like unfunded mandates, and i never have. i want to fund these issues because i don't want my people exposed to chrome-6. and if a water district is saying it's too costly, i need to help you, but we shouldn't mix up as, i think, dr. burke points out the truth of what it's going to mean to protect the people with the cost. we have to see those two things and we have to work to make sure that we can help these districts protect their people. we don't want children being born whose brains aren't developed as they should. we don't want children being born with all kinds of birth defects. and we found out, for example,

with lead, the great news is when you protect them from exposure, they're fine. even the ones who had some exposure before. so i think this committee has a proud history of working across party lines to protect the public. but i would ask -- since i have made a number of comments and i didn't give people a chance to respond, i will go down and have you each make a closing statement. go ahead, mr. cook, and we'll go next to ms. van dehigh >> we supported your legislation and we supported it for a long time. we've been worried about chromium-6. you've been worried about it well over a decade officially. >> yes. >> and so this is not a new subject. but i think that we stand ready to work with the committee not just on the health and assessment side but also on the funding side. we have worked very cordially with our colleagues at the water associations for many years, supported their request for additional money, lobbied

side-by-side with them in some cases on contaminant issues. so i think you're right. this is not a partisan issue. it's not a regional issue. this is an american issue. we want to have clean water. and we have some barriers in the way that we have to deal with. so thank you. >> well, thank you for all your work. if i could just say keep on doing what you're doing. >> thank you. >> you know, if people don't like it, that's their right. i like it. because i want a snapshot. and i don't take it as the last word. i just take it as a warning, as a red flag. as a moment to say, wait a minute, this is a snapshot today and this is a little surprising. and i think the groups should welcome it. and i think there's some that do. but i certainly welcome it as chairman of this committee. and i encourage you to keep on doing your job because in a time of budget deficits and i think mr. murray was honest about it. these are tough times. very tough times for everybody. but the world goes on. and our kids are being born. and we're relying on them for

our future. we can't stop the science or telling the truth to the american people. these are hard times. we have to look at what we're facing and we have to decide what's most important. and what you're doing is saying, time out. let's take a look at this. we don't want to look at it but i'm with you all the way in your work and i hope you continue it. ms. van de hei. >> thank you, chairman boxer. i guess a couple of things. i'd like to say in our testimony we did not intend to say that congress had no role in the safe drinking water act. in fact, congress enacted the drinking act and has an important role in oversight in making sure that act is implemented the way you intended it to. so i'd like to make that clear. we also wonder why there have been no new contaminants regulated. and we believe the process is there to do that. so i would -- i would ask that perhaps -- perhaps someone look at epa's structure in where

the -- where the people, where they are studying and what the office needs in terms of data to support a regulation. about 18 years ago, those offices were separated. we got program offices, science was taken away from it. i think that is part of the reason why you don't see new regulations coming down the road. i'd also like to follow up with something that ken mentioned and that is there is confusion about what an mclg is and what an mcl is. we would support one number. we have tried for years to get congress to look at that issue because it's hard to explain to somebody why you can have an mcld of zero and a standard that's different than that. so we would love to work with you on that, that part. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. murray? >> thank you, madam chair. i think we're all seeking for meaningful opportunities for risk reduction. we can argue that the clean water act gave us is framework

to get to those meaningful opportunities for risk reduction and we can argue that maybe that process isn't working as well as it should be working. but we can't replace that process with water utilities chasing the contaminant du jour. right now fairfax water is monitoring for 30-plus compounds, new compounds, over the last year, year and a half that has been raised as contaminants of concern. and we don't know what to say about it. we post the data on our website and we don't have decent health effects information to speak intelligently to our customers about it. >> we remove a lot of them but what levels is it safe? and so i think your concerns with how we can improve the process of getting to meaningful risk reduction is real. thank you. >> thank you. thank you. dr. burke? >> thank you. i think the most important thing that the committee can do is break the logjam.

you're absolutely right about no movement forward. since the mid-'90s. and even that movement has been quite little. we're actually stuck back in the late '70s, i think, in safe drinking water. and i think it comes down to this. prevention is not a bad word. in public health it's what we do. lack of absolutes certainty and arguments about costs and there shouldn't be an excuse for lack of action. and so i would hope that as we move forward, you can use the science, apply it better, take a hard look at the way epa does things and streamline it so that we can better protect public health. >> thank you so much, all of you. we'll have our test case with percholorate and chrome-6 and i hope our friends at the water agencies will work with us. you're going to have a chance to publicly comment. i'll be looking forward to what you say on this issue of percholorate. it's all across the country. it's all over the place. and we already know the problem

it causes with thyroid. so i hope you will work with us. look, you know, i think that straightforward, honest declarations here are in order. if we have had that percholorate is a danger and we've proved it to the water districts and we've moved it -- i think the water districts should support it and say we'll be honest we're going to need help in doing it. i mean, let's get to that point rather than try to use every delaying tactic so that we just continue on with increasing cancer rates, with -- i have a bill that will get epa more involved in coordinating cancer cluster action. when we hear people in different states, we don't know what's happening but we have a higher -- we don't know there's this hot spot of leukemia over here. and why there's a hot spot of

other problems over here. and right now there isn't a way to respond except with the local people doing something. the epa maybe being called and what we're trying to do is get all this information under one roof and try to answer these questions. and a lot of the questions that could lead back to water. we have our cancer hotspots -- it was a brain tumor. it was a hot spot of brain cancer in children in idaho. and senator crapo and i crossed party lines and have gotten together to move forward with this cancer cluster bill, and it may lead to the water because as it turns out we found out the -- one thing we know, there was mining and a lot of those toxins went into a lake and the kids swam in the lake i don't know if it was in the drinking water. we don't know all that. but the point is, it's our responsibility to protect the health, safety of our people. all of us. it is our job.

whether you're a nonprofit, whether you're a profit. you know, we need to all be mindful of that. we can't harm the people. and my role as chairman here is just to point out that we're not moving quickly enough on some of these contaminants that have been around a long time. there's a lot of information. states like massachusetts, new jersey, california are moving forward. it's really our job. why should a person in california be safer from creme than he is in any other state? -- chrome-6 than he is in any other state? it's not right. this is one country under god. we have to protect all of our people. so i'm going to look forward to working with all of you because you're all a piece of this puzzle, and i think in the spirit of cooperation that i hope we will continue to have, that we'll be able to get behind some of these obvious problems and solve them because that's our job. and i want to thank each and every one of you for being here

and for your very honest, straightforward testimony. we stand adjourned and thank you. >> in a moment we'll go live to a transportation department briefing on unintended acceleration in toyota vehicles. transportation officials and nasa engineers are expected to testify. we'll have live coverage here on c-span2 starting in just a couple of moments. it starts at 2:00 pm eastern.

>> the state of the state in salt lake city. the governor is outlining his budget priorities and the issues of the states rights in this address. [applause] [applause] >> thank you very much. lieutenant governor bell, president, speaker lockhart,

members of the utah legislature, members of my cabinet, utah supreme court justices, the state's first lady, my wife, jeanette, and my fellow utahans. it is indeed an honor and a pleasure to join you in this historic chamber this evening on the north wall of this room appears a tribute to the women of utah and those who worked to secure the right of women to vote. over the years, many have pioneered the way in this hall including our first female governor olene walker but tonight marks the first time a woman leads the house of representatives and i'm delighted to be the first governor to say, congratulations, madam speaker. [applause] [applause]

>> it is fitting and right at a time of international conflict that we recognize those who defend and protect us, both on the battlefronts abroad and here at home. we appreciate their sacrifice and we honor their service. one of those whose life was nearly lost is brody young, a state park ranger and more importantly, husband of wendy young and father to stride, jade and jagger. on the night of november 19th, while on patrol at poison spider mesa trailhead, he was shot nine times. i spoke with him earlier today. he's healing and his spirits are strong. while we highlight brody for his heroism, we also acknowledge the service and sacrifice of all other public safety officers and their families. tonight brody and his family are watching this broadcast on television. please join me in honoring brody and all of our dedicated peace officers.

[applause] >> last night our president delivered the state of the union. tonight we focus on utah. i'm pleased to say that despite our challenges, the state of our state is strong and its course is sure. it is my desire that the actions we take in this capital this session will keep our state on the road to recovery and return utah to prosperity. as i surveyed this great state of utah, i recognize we have challenges and opportunities. while many states face multibillion dollar deficits, we're fortunate utah's budget, though, difficult is manageable.

our current unemployment is too high. and many households are hurting. still utah's unemployment rate continues to be better than the national average. i understand that more utah families now rely on food stamps and too many homes have been lost to foreclosure. and we're fought out of the woods yet. but the good news is, the outlook is improving. fewer people are filing new unemployment claims, housing starts are expected to increase. and the market is showing increased consumer and business confidence. as a state we are focused on getting people back to work. we have made the tough choices. we've streamlined services. we have modernized and we've become more efficient. when i began my service to the state as lieutenant governor, there was one state employee for every 122 utah residents. but thanks to the ability of our great state employees to do more with less, there's now 1 state employee for every 136 utahans.

we've done so well while continuing with the basic services people need while keeping taxes low. [applause] >> my father was a building contractor. when he was building homes he always made certain the foundation was strong, the walls were sturdy and the roof never leaked. this session, we are tasked by the citizens, the people who hired us to do the job to make certain the house we call utah is solid and strong. like any good contractor before he took on a new project, my father asked a few basic questions. are we following the blueprints? will the project pencil out? are we building what the customer wants? i'd like just to keep those questions in mind as we focus on the state's road to recovery and

our return to prosperity. like any sound stretcher, utah's future prosperity will be built upon four cornerstones. education, energy development, job creation and utah's ability to solve its own problems. [applause] >> education is the first cornerstone because an educated work force is not just critical, it is essential for a prosperous economy. one of utah's strengths is we have the fastest growing population in the country. this impacts our classrooms. in the past two years alone, we have added over 25,000 new elementary school students. but due to declining tax revenues our schools and our teachers have had to be innovative to absorb that growth. however, westbound only add so much water to the soup without diluting the quality.

this year we will add another 14,700 students. the good news is that for the first time in three years, because of economic expansion, we have the opportunity to fund this growth in our public and charter schools. therefore, in this legislative session, funding our children's education must be our number one budget priority. [applause] >> last year, at the state of the state i announced the creation of my education excellence commission. this commission which i chair includes leaders and experts across the state and across all disciplines including six of your fellow legislators. together we spent hundreds of hours developing this long-term action plan which you have here on your desk. the vision of this plan is that by the year 2020 two-thirds of utahans, ages 2065 will have a

post secondary degree or professional certification. the pattern holds true for state to state. higher education translates into economic success. for example, the university of utah is not a new pac-10 contender on the playing field it's a national championship in the classroom and in the laboratory. last year, the university of utah surpassed mit to take the top spot in the country for the number of startup companies with their beginnings in university research. [applause] >> this extraordinary goal was 66% by 2020 is indeed ambitious. and it will not be accomplished overnight. but we must be bold and we must begin now. that is why this action plan that you have also includes eight specific proposals. the initial steps recommended unanimously by the commission

members, proposals that i ask you to look at and address this session. these initiatives include ensuring reading proficiency by the third grade. and matching classroom instruction to real world jobs especially in the areas of science, engineering and math. the math way to success in post-secondary education which leads to economic prosperity as an adult begins in elementary school as a child. that is why another of the eight proposals focuses on extended-day kindergarten. i've listened to teachers and parents explain how this optional utah-crafted program helps our youngest, most at-risk students and improves their ability to meet their future job ready. i've also seen the data, the messages is clear. investing in our children today benefits all of us tomorrow. [applause]

>> a second cornerstone of utah's economic viability is one that we've taken for granted for far too long. low cost and reliable supplies of energy. utah businesses compete better and are more successful because utah has more energy costs than most other states. companies relocate to utah and, therefore, create jobs because of utah's affordable and stable electricity. indeed the cost of electricity in utah is among the lowest of any state and the price of a kilowatt hour has held steady for the past 20 years. equally important, utah's energy industries create tens of thousands of jobs and poured hundreds of millions of dollars into our economy. tax revenues from energy-related jobs amounted to over $200 million last year alone. utah has been abundantly blessed with massive energy resources. we are a state that's largely

energy independent. in fact, we are net exporter of electricity. while many other states and indeed our nation have compromised or abandoned their energy independence, here in utah, we will not. [applause] [applause] >> we simply cannot put the economic fate of future generations in peril by relying upon others for energy needs. but in the world of energy, we must face new realities. we must confront new challenges. and we must envision and act upon new opportunities. last year i called for the development of a 10-year strategic energy plan for utah. so oversee the process, i assembled many of utah's

brightest and most talented minds from the energy arena. we sought and received a strong public response from many stakeholders in public meetings around the state. soon, each of you will receive the final report. regarding the issue of energy, there are major energy challenges ahead. for example, too few capital improvements have been made to utah's energy infrastructure. billions of dollars will be required to upgrade and expand utah's electricity generation and transmission systems. our reliance upon traditional fuels is being challenged. yes, renewable energy such as wind, solar and geothermal will play an expanding and important role. however, the base load, the very foundation of utah's energy will most assuredly be provided by either fossil or nuclear fuels. [applause]

>> every state -- every state has to face that simple reality and more than many states have included nuclear power in our nuclear portfolio. we must begin substantive debate and deliberation whether there's a place for nuclear energy in utah. [applause] >> i'm convinced we have even greater human resources. in utah we have some of the best energy minds and the greatest expertise of any place in the world. our universities and our industries must rise to the occasion and create new technologies that will make our traditional resources more economically and environmentally viable. in utah we have the spirit of technical innovation and pioneer determination. that will enable us to keep energy affordable, supplies stable and our economic future secure. the third cornerstone essential to our return to prosperity is

all about jobs. my vision for economic development is that utah will lead the nation as the best performing economy and be recognized as a premier global business destination. [applause] >> in utah we know it as the private sector and not government work that creates jobs. and those jobs are being created from the expansion of home grown utah companies as well as new companies relocating to our state. some of the most recognized businesses in the world now call utah home. companions like adobe, proctor & gamble, ebay, lighthouse foods, disney, golds and the royal bank of scotland just to name is few. local utah businesses are expanding like peterson incorporated, nelson companies, edwards life sciences, i am

flash and overstock.com. to accelerate this job creation across the state we must focus on three key areas. first we must increase access to capital for small and startup businesses. the utah-funded funds created by this legislature three years ago is focused on assisting utah companies. second, we must expand our global vision. utah's expert growth is the strongest in the nation. to ensure a continued focus on international business, high challenge lou kramer and other international business leaders to double utah exports in the next five years. [applause] >> third, i urge the legislature to pass the senator's business expansion and retention bill to support companies throughout rural utah. [applause]

>> utah has been recognized time and again as a probusiness state and including for the first time in our state's history a number one ranking from forbes as the best state for business and careers in america. [applause] >> i can tell you i'm thrilled but i'm not surprised. we're the best place for business because we have the best people for business. however, the competition is getting tougher. my fellow governors across the country have all promised to improve their state economies. they're gunning for utah's top spot for job growth. to stay ahead of the competition we must refine, distinguish, and promote our competitive advantages. one of those advantages is our unprecedented partnerships. i thank senator scott jenkins to

create a coordinating council this council will ensure that the collective efforts of government and the business community are focused on jobs, jobs, and more jobs. [applause] >> this collaboration will further enhance the co-location of many economic development entities into a building that i'm pleased to announce tonight will be utah's own world trade center located here in downtown salt lake city. [applause] >> two of the most important ways government can nurture a business-friendly environment are, one, keep taxes low, and, two, make regulations fair. many states are raising taxes. in utah we are in the enviable position of being able to keep taxes low and still pay for

essential services because we saved for a rainy day when times were good knowing a storm would eventually come. despite this ongoing economic gale my budget maintains at least $110 million in the rainy day fund and reflects my commitment of keeping taxes low. increasing taxes on our citizens and our businesses will be counterproductive to economic recovery. [applause] >> i understand that the purpose of government regulation is to maintain a level playing field. as a small business owner, i have also experienced the cost and frustration of overreaching and irrational regulation. in order to separate regulations that serve an important purpose from those regulations that serve no purpose at all, i've asked each member of my cabinet to review existing business regulations and determine which

could be kept, which should be modified and which will be eliminated. last year i created the governor's excision to optimize state government fund. it's to conduct an audit on every performance of state government. after a year-long review they said and i quote, one thing is clear. utahans can rest assured that their tax dollars are being spent efficiently and effectively, closed quote. but the best state can do better. that is why we're addressing all 56 commission recommendations to make government even more efficient. i invite all citizens to follow the progress we are making at optimize.gov.org because the government of utah belongs to the people of utah. [applause] >> the final cornerstone we must

secure is the spirit of self-determination, the ability to address utah problems with utah solutions. i firmly believe if we as a state fail to vigorously fight to protect and defend our rights under the constitution, those rights will invariably be seized and usurped by the federal government. [applause] >> thank you. i want to remind washington, we are a state, not a colony. and i assure you on my watch, utah will not stand idly by. [applause]

>> in fact, we and 26 other states are asserting our right and our obligation to say no to an unconstitutional federal health care program. [applause] >> over the past three years, we worked closely with you and the legislature to create solutions to reform utah's health care system. we are also taking the lead to rein in outrageous cost increases and federally mandated entitlement programs before those costs further impair our ability to fund education and other vital state services. in the election last november, the people sent a message that federal domination must give way to mutual collaboration. unfortunately, that message was promptly ignored. two days before christmas, while

most of us were spending time with family and friends, federal officials at the u.s. department of interior secretly prepared an order to announce a new wild lands designation on public lands. with no public input, with no state input, this pronouncement threatens years of collaboration and rural economic progress. let me be clear, this process and the resulting policy are flat-out wrong. [applause] ..

>> we have been sent here by the voters to find solutions to tough issues. immigration reform is but one example of how we must achieve a new clip level of collaboration, commitment and initiative. as we undertake this work, let us never forget our obligation to respect each other, even when we disagree, to engage in civil dialogue, to temper passion with reason. and let us remember our common goal to secure the best outcomes for all people of this great state. [applause] >> let me conclude by saying i

did it. i am a parent. i'm a grandparent. the challenges faced by every utah family, including my own, our lively topics of discussion when our family gets together every sunday for dinner. i know the pressures of providing for family, and the challenges of running a small family business. i still do the grocery shopping, and, yes, i do know what the cost of a gallon of milk is. i know what it's like to worry for my family, and i know what it's like to worry for our state. i did it, and i know that you get it, too. as elected officials each of us has been given a mandate, and, of course, -- >> you can see his state of the state address on our website, c-span.org. live now at the transportation department briefing on unintended acceleration in toyota vehicles. remember congress asked the government to look at the

problem last year following the recalls of millions of people. live coverage on c-span2. >> help americans live safely from one place to another. auto accidents or crashes can and will happen, our solemn obligation is the responsibility with which the american people have entrusted us is to help prevent accidents. our charge above all is to save lives. as long as president obama and i are on the job we will never take the american people's trust lightly. for their safety for granted. and i said over and over when it comes to safety we will not take a back seat to anyone. in service of this commitment and that congress' request, we launched to unprecedented studies into unintended

acceleration in toyota automobiles, and in america's fleet of cars over all. we asked a straightforward question, can automotive electronic systems possibly cause unintended acceleration. one study, the national academy of sciences exploration of unintended acceleration across america's fleet continues. the other study, our partnership with masses, engineering and safety center has now come to a close. today, we can say clearly and affirmatively that nhtsa, america's traffic safety organization, was right all along. as we stated last year, there are only two real world causes

of high-speed unintended acceleration in toyota's. first, some toyota formats and trap drivers gas pedal while their vehicles were in motion. second, so-called sticky petals made some toyota acceleration too slow to release. as a consequence, toyota has issued recalls and paid for repairs on nearly 8 million cars or trucks. and nhtsa has leveled record wrecking civil penalties on the company because it failed to respond to these critical safety concerns in a sufficient, sufficiently timely manner. our conclusion that toyotas problems were mechanical, our conclusion is this. toyotas problems were mechanic

mechanical, not electrical. and it comes after one of the most exhaustive, thorough, and intensive research efforts ever taken. nhtsa's best and brightest engineers, our nation's leading electronic specialists, men and women who work with the space program rigorously examined nine vehicles in which consumers reported unintended acceleration. they pored over more than 280,000 lines of software code looking for potential flaws that could initiate an unintended acceleration incident. they bombarded vehicles with electromagnetic radiation to see whether it could make electronic systems cause the cars they control to gain speed.

and they, along with nhtsa, worked meticulously day and night to get to the bottom of unintended acceleration. when we talk about nhtsa's safety first focus, this is what we mean. it's why we saw more voluntary automotive recalls during 2010 than in any previous year, a total of 20.3 million vehicles. it's why we received an all time high number of consumer complaints, closely reviewing each and every one and it's why we have worked the clock to keep american drivers and passengers safe. so let's be clear. the jury is back. the verdict is in. there is no electronic-based cause for unintended high-speed acceleration in toyota's,

period. and this morning -- excuse me, this afternoon with safety experts from nasa and nets are on hand to review the salient and supporting details with you. to address nasa's findings we have mike kirsch, principal engineer at nasa's engine and safety center who led this first of its kind study, to address the thousands of complaints that nhtsa received and the methodology with which nhtsa carried out the research we have ronald medford, the agency's deputy administrator. to explain nhtsa and the departments next step we have david strickland, nhtsa's administrator. and, finally, we will be happy to take questions after their presentations. let me close by saying this. i am deeply, personally grateful to the dedicated safety

professionals at nasa and nhtsa who conducted the study with extraordinary rigor, immense skill, and unwavering attention, and absolute integrity. it was an enormous task, but they have set the standard for thoroughness, and we are appreciative. so with that, mike, please present nasa's information. >> thank you, mr. secretary, and thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work is such a broad audience today. as the secretary said i'm a principal engineer in the nasa engineering and safety center. i work out of langley research center in hampton, virginia, about four hours southeast of here. principle and jeers are multidisciplined engineers and provide project management for multidisciplined tasks in our organizations. it like to start the presentation with a summary of our outcome.

the bottom line is that nasa analysis and testing did not find evidence that malfunctioned in the electronic throttle control costs large unintended acceleration's by described by consumer reports. and now i'd like to discuss how we arrived at our conclusions. deception i will provide a backup on a messaging and safety center. background and goals of the study. the approach of the study, our technical evaluation strategy. i'll give you a subset of finding and observations from our final report, and then wrap it up with an executive summary. the nasa enduring and safety center was established in 2003 in response to the space shuttle columbia accident. the goal was to enable complex problem solving using experts anywhere in the world. this approach allows the best engineers and their respective

disciplines to apply their expertise in tough technical problems. dna -- independent assessment since its inception. nasa begin discussions with nhtsa in march of 2010. the scope will determine if there were designed vulnerabilities in the toyota electronic throttle control that could possibly cause unintended acceleration that can be realistically expected to occur in consumers use of these vehicles. two critical components of that scope, vulnerabilities that lead to unintended acceleration and our realistically expected to occur in the consumers use. nasa formed a team with indian experts and systems, avionics, software, electromagnetic interference and human factors. some of the best engineers in their respective disciplines from across the country, experts from nine of 10 nasa centers

where participating. we worked directly with nhtsa's automotive experts and this made for a very powerful team. we have some guiding questions during our study. what specific conditions, both internal and external are necessary for the failure conditions to occur. are those conditions evident in reported cases. what physical or electronic evidence did the failure produce. what are the expected ranges in severity. and could defend have any effect on any other interfaces such as the braking system. the nasa team received and evaluated threesome outside nhtsa and outside nasa. the nasa team evaluate consumer reports and warnke returned data while studying how the electronic throttle control works. we studied over 900 vehicle and questionnaires in detail and read many more. we were looking for clues that would help characterize the failure affects.

the model year 2005 toyota camry was identified as a vehicle to study in depth. can have the highest production volume and high number of consumer reports in the malia 2005 was selected because it contained impose both from the earlier design and the later electronic throttle control system. from the nhtsa consumer reported a majority majority of the consumers described large throttle openings with degraded braking and did not leave a trace or a diagnostic trouble code. therefore, the nasa study focused on identifying failure modes that could result in large throttle openings may not generate diagnostic trouble code or leave a physical trace. the technical strategy was analyzed with the system to understand how it is supposed to work and then export how it might fail. we were given unrestricted access to all toyota proprietary design details, including engineering schematics, circuit

board layouts and software for source code. we had ready access to toyota engineers both in the u.s. and in japan any time we had questions. the nasa team assembled and tested critical electronic throttle control components in the system include the accelerator pedal, the throttle body and electronic control module to understand how that system might fail. disallow the team to develop an empirical understanding of the system in the lab which coupled with design information enabled a detailed understanding of the entire system. the nasa software teammodeled the code, ran the code on simulators and subjected the code to automate code checkers. the nasa team that access to vehicles purchased by nhtsa from consumers with a sentence of unintended acceleration, and these vehicles were examined for signs of failure and were also used to validate our understanding of the system and to characterize the effect of these failures that were induced

in the system. the nasa team also perform electromagnetic interference testing on thesinto the system to guard against large unintended acceleration from failures. multiple independent safety features include detecting failures and initiating safe modes such as home mode and to cut strategies. there were no electrical failures in the electronic throttle control that impacted the braking system era however pumping the brakes at full throttle will cause loss of vacuum assist. this effect would be seen if you had entrapped pedal. this mode is not unique to toyota vehicles. there were no failures found in the software that would unilaterally cause unintended acceleration. there were no credible vulnerabilities identified from electromagnetic interference testing that would cause unintended acceleration. to create large unintended acceleration, two independent

panel signals need to falsely indicate that the panel has been pressed. this requires two independent failures that the failure detection system would not detect. these days must be in precise ranges in the correct circuit in the correct time sequence. if you fail to meet any of these restrictive conditions, the vehicle will generate a diagnostic trouble code. we would expect to see signs of this failure in warranty claims if this type of failure were occurring. our review of warranty data did not indicate an elevated occurrence of this diagnostic trouble code relative to the number of reports of unintended accelerations. the nasa team did perform destructive analysis from a failed pedal to the consumer vehicle. they had a vehicle that had the check engine light come on and we found an electrical short between the two pedal signals. this failure mode combined with driver input could cause the throttle to jump slightly your

however in all cases releasing the accelerator pedal stop the effect and vehicle braking was not affected. and although the vehicle would operate, it was not considered drivable. for cases of this failure mode were found in the review of the vehicle under questionnaires and warnke returned data, and in all cases the check engine light came on and the consumer had the vehicle prepared -- repair. more recent pedal design from 2000 later were found to guard against this type of failure. i'm going to shift to observations. observations are conclusions that are sort outside the scope of the study or are unsubstantiated by evidence. my first observation it was absurd that failures of safety critical systems and electronic throttle control do not provide the same driver information as failures in safety critical braking system. this is also not unique to toyota vehicles. for example, failures in the

brake system get a unique red warning light while a generic check engine light occurs for failed in the electronic control system. the same check engine light illuminates for a loose gas cap. diagnostic trouble codes were intended for a mission control and are not mandated for safety critical failures. it was also absurd to vehicles that are offered with the failure of susceptible to the effects of the second failure. no evidence was found that the failures occurred in vehicles with reported unintended acceleration. to summarize, nasa detailed analysis and testing did not find evidence that malfunctions in electronic throttle controls caused large unintended accelerations as described i some consumer reports. nasa found a way that electronic throttle could fit with combined driver input can cause the throttle to jump but the failure rate is very low and it leaves evidence to reoccurrence.

we also felt ways that electronic throttle control can fail in very small throttle openings up to five degrees. our detailed study can't say it's impossible, but they so the testing and analysis performed we find that malfunctions in electronics are an unlikely cause of large unintended acceleration. now i'd like to turn over to ron baker, deputy administrator for the national highway traffic safety administration. >> thanks, my. good afternoon, everyone. first let me thank mike and the team at nasa for all the hard work that they have done for us here at nhtsa on the issue of toyota electronic throttle control system for vulnerabilities. our focus at the national highway traffic safety administration have worked very closely with them over the last several months, and i have to say that we could not have had a more intelligent, dedicated or capable group of people working on this issue.

and i think nasa's conclusion bears repeating. there is no electronic-based calls for unintended high-speed acceleration in toyota's. before we enlisted nasa's help, last year we already had to evaluate potential causes of reported unintended acceleration for several years. details are at work include the research and potential causes of unintended acceleration are in the report we are releasing today. we identified to vehicle-based mechanical causes of unintended acceleration in toyota vehicles. the first one, pedal entrapment, occurs when the accelerator pedal becomes trapped in a depressed position by an all weather format. the second, sticky accelerator pedal, can hold accelerated in a depressed position or caused to return slowly after the driver takes their foot off the pedal.

at our urging toyota recalls nearly 8 million vehicles that could potentially have been affected by these failures. to make sure the scope of the pedal entrapment, sticky pedal recalls was broad enough to address all the vehicle-based causes of unintended acceleration known to toyota, we analyze tens of thousands of toyota documents. we did not find any previously unknown potential causes of unintended acceleration in any of the data. we turn to her own databases and scrutinize consumer complaints and toyota warranty data in great detail. not surprisingly, we found that publicity surrounding our investigations, the recalls and congressional hearings on the subject played a major role in the volume of complaints received. you can see on the chart in back

of me that our toyota complaint volume spike in march 2004 when we first opened a widely publicized investigation for the electronic throttle control. complaints ramped up again in september 2009 through the end of march 2010. that time period witnessed the fatal crash near san diego in late august 2009. at florette entrapment recall in early october 2009, an expansion of the recall as well as the sticky pedal recall in january of last year. and, finally, the congressional hearings shortly thereafter. we receive the majority of the complaints after the recall and almost half of those came in favor and march of 2010. i want to draw your attention to some important numbers in our vehicle complaint database. of the 9698 unintended

acceleration complaints, 1998-2010 model year vehicles, only 3054 were unintended acceleration complaints about toyota vehicles. in other words, about two-thirds of the unintended acceleration complaints to nhtsa spanned the entire automotive fleet. unintended acceleration is not exclusive to toyotas. the vast majority of the unintended acceleration complaints of toyota vehicles involved incidents with the vehicle was stationary for traveling at very low speeds, and the driver claimed that the vehicles suddenly accelerated and the brakes didn't work. we found when the complaint alleged that the brakes didn't work, or that the incident began when the driver stepped on the break, what most likely happened was pedal misapplication. the driver stepped on the gas rather than the break or in addition to the break.

field inspections of vehicles involved in unintended acceleration incidents during 2010 supports this analysis. we inspected 58 vehicles. 18 were excluded for various reasons, including the lack of event data recorders. but in the remaining 40? is no vehicle-based defect could be identified as the cause of those crashes from 39 of them. and for one crash the result occurred because of pedal entrapment. does vehicle inspections which included objective evidence from event data recorders indicated drivers were applying the accelerator and not applying the brake, are not applying it until the last second or so before the crash. above and beyond field inspections we obtained 20 toyota vehicles for extensive testing and examination of factors that can contribute to

unintended acceleration. we chose 11 vehicles that had not been involved in unintended acceleration incidents, and nine complaint vehicles that had been involved in recorded unintended acceleration incidents. we could not find any previously unknown defects in these 20 vehicles and we determined the braking system for capable of overcoming all levels of acceleration, including wide open for model. with this report we have a tremendous body of work analyzed and verified and compiled all potential unintended acceleration in toyota vehicles. separately we've enlisted the national academy of sciences to examine the broad subject of unintended acceleration across the entire automotive industry. and the safety implications of electronic control systems that are increasingly common in motor vehicles. we expect recent -- to receive recommendations from the national academy of sciences later this year on how we might

use their research in making authority to address any such implications identified either pedal. -- identified by a pedal. spent by other like to turn out to the transport minister who report on the potential future work, david strickland expecting to so much, and thank everyone for being here. good afternoon. as you've already heard, nasa's report on the unintended acceleration of toyota vehicles represents months of precise and exhaustive work by both nasa and national highway traffic safety administration engineers. nasa has delivered outstanding work and like the secretary, i want to personally thank mike kirsch and his team for their dedication and passion for this project. in addition, i'd like to thank dan smith, our senior associate administrator for vehicle safety and our tranfourteen for his leadership and their tireless efforts. the nasa findings, observations

and recommendations, coupled with nhtsa's own work, point to several actions that we at the national highway traffic safety administration can take now, to lessen the risk of unintended acceleration in the entire automotive fleet. it also suggests longer-term areas where we can strengthen the agency's ability to address the safety of electronic control systems. short term we will consider initiating at least three rule makings. first, to require break overwrite systems. second, to standardize the operation of key ignition systems. and third, to require the installation of event data recorders in all passenger vehicles. first, break overwrite systems help prevent or lessen unintended acceleration incidents by assigning priority to the braking system over the throttle. as noted in his report break overwrite systems, and i quote,

provide a broad overarching defense against unintended engine power from a wide range of problems, not just unintended acceleration. second, jesus ignition systems can't exacerbate unintended acceleration incidents if, for example, the driver cannot quickly shut off the engine. and third, crash investigators can mind the event data recorders for information relevant to unintended acceleration incidents that result in crashes. for the longer-term, and national highway traffic safety administration will also begin broad research on the reliability of electronic control systems so that we can continue to ensure future generations of vehicles are safe. with vehicles becoming increasingly reliant on electronic controlled systems. our knowledge in this area is critical. we will also continue to make

sure our staff continues to be well-informed about emerging technologies and that we hire staff with the needed expertise. we will give full consideration to nasa's findings and observations, including their suggestion that we improve dashboard warnings for safety critical vehicle issues, and that we evaluate vulnerabilities and software designs. and on nasa's recommendation we will look to other industries for best practices in managing safety critical functions. we -- work already done by the railroad, aerospace, military and medical sectors can provide technical guidance for our own industry that we regulate the automobile industry. and as mentioned in national academy of sciences pedal starting unintended acceleration and electronic control systems across the fleet will offer recommendations on these subjects. we look forward to their analysis and we wish to enhance

our own understanding of the subject area. today, i am also announcing that the national highway traffic safety administration would begin research on the placement and design of accelerator and brake pedals, as was human factors research such as out drivers use the throttle and brake pedals. pedal misapplication occurs in vehicles across the fleet and we want to know whether these types of incidents can be reduced to better pedal placement and design. along with nasa we plan to breathe a national academy of sciences panel soon after these findings by our two agencies. finally, i want to remind the american public that we are dedicated to their safety. we want to serve you. we want to hear from you. and we want to keep you informed. i strongly encourage everyone to visit our website, safer car.gov

where you can not only report problems in finding information about recalls, but you can sign-up to be notified about safety vehicles that affect your car, tires and child safety. the national highway traffic safety administration has the most active investigators program on the planet. and at last had an unusually large number of recalls due to nhtsa's willingness to work with manufacturers to identify problems early as the law requires. as the secretary said, highway and traffic safety is more than the name of our agency. or the object of our mission. it is a serious responsibility with which the american people have entrusted us. thank you very much. >> all right. i will try and organize the questions here. if you have a question, please.

[inaudible] >> we have received a large number of complaints, especially as i noted since a lot of the publicity surrounding this. and a lot of those new complaints involving fatalities of unintended acceleration came in after this. we have looked into as many of those as we get concrete data on, and we don't see a cause related to unintended acceleration other than the ones we've already addressed. >> can i ask about -- you said the main reason that you don't think these two rare incidents happened in the real world is because of the war decline data. is there anything else that led

you to believe that? was there a complaint that could potentially be affected by this rare circumstances because the foundation of the theory was that it takes the precise resistance value for the failure to occur here if anything other than those precise values occurs and will throw a code. so if that type of failure were occurring you would expect there to be signed in the war decline data. we didn't see the signs so we don't expect that just those perfect resisters were occurring everywhere, and the non-perfect resisters were occurring. you expect to see kind of a premade. many more close calls in our vernacular would call it before the real ones hit. >> what did you -- you mention human factor. [inaudible] >> the main reason we had our human factors focus engage was

the one, help interpret the vehicle owner questionnaire data, and also if we found a vulnerability was kind of human dependent, like this vulnerability will occur if the accelerator pedal is stepped on at this rate, it was for them to guide us in what is reasonably possible. [inaudible] >> we didn't find any vulnerabilities of the human factor depended. [inaudible] >> repeat the question. >> the question is of the pedal misapplication complaints, how big is that problem compared to

the other problem that we identified as part of the defects your we think that much of the complaints, and they are detailed in the report our acts in the vast majority are related to that type of a problem, based on our analysis of the 50 cases with electronic data recorders and a full review of all the data with respect to the cases look at in detail. >> anybody over your? yes, angela. [inaudible] >> i'm sorry, i didn't hear you. [inaudible] >> i'll give you an illustrati illustration. last year my youngest daughter who lives in peoria called and said she was thinking about buying a 2011 toyota sienna. she wanted an ironclad guarantee from me that her vehicle was going to be safe. so i checked with david and ron, and i told my daughter that she should buy the toyota sienna, which she did.

so i think that illustrates that we feel that toyota vehicles are safe to drive. yes? >> it seems there's a bit of a difference between what nasa is saying -- you are saying they're no causes. excels like you are on different sides. >> i think we are on the exact same page. now seeking data from an injury perspective and we are trying to prove negative and it's very difficult to prove a negative. so basically we found no evidence that this is causing large unintended acceleration. that's an objective statement. we are certainly -- certainly nasa scientist, could never happen. >> and from nhtsa's perspective, safety is our number one priority so our goal is to find a real-world incident and where

it in electronic data can cause unintended acceleration they can't be controlled by the breaker from our safety analysis and our automotive experts paired with nasa's findings, we are incredibly confident that the only cause of unintended acceleration in toyota vehicles are the two mechanical causes, floor mat entrapment and sticky pedal. but we'll always continue to monitor not only toyota but the rest of the fleet or any trend if this issue for us to investigate and then go forward with possible action. >> what's the status of your investigation for the toyota technicians who were apparently able to duplicate sudden acceleration of vehicles speakers i think you are alluding to the document where they looked at ron dismisses toyota -- sorry, lexus. toyota provided the full report and it is very clear from the report that toyota was not able, was not able to repeat that

condition. in terms of the verbiage of the report and the details why we would strongly recommend that you contact toyota on that, but we are very confident that report was very thorough and they were not able to replicate that condition. >> just to follow up. did a nhtsa have any ongoing investigation where toyota was able to replicate the unintended acceleration? >> i'll have to refer to ron, but my understanding was and was no cases like that. >> we have no ongoing investigations related to that. >> we do have opened still the recall query. we were looking for whether or not there's any additional issues related to unintended acceleration cases that we've are ahead of recalls for, but that's it. [inaudible] >> know. i told -- the last time i spoke to mr. smith was last week and she wanted to know specific results of the study which were not able to provide at the time

and we told her we were still looking at her vehicle. the nhtsa step in the nasa staff did extensive testing of that lexus including electromagnetic interference testing, full throttle testing of all the safety systems, and there was no other vulnerabilities done on that vehicle other than what nhtsa originally found, that this situation that ms. smith encountered was floor mat entrapment. [inaudible] >> yes. >> repeat the question. >> the question is how do we explain owners who have had repairs done to the vehicles and then they complain again that they have already, they continue to have a problem recur. we have looked at a variety of

those specific complaints, and each and every incidents we have not found any data to support the conclusion that it's anything other than the two types of defects that we've already determined exist and have recalled. [inaudible] >> look, the reason we did a study that we did is because if you went to the hearings that i testified at an house of representatives and the senate, just about every member of congress didn't believe that we have found the problem, which was floor mat, sticky pedal. and just about every member of congress that question me said it's got to be the electronics. so to try and prove the case that it was at the electronics we hired the experts. and they said it wasn't the electronics. so i think what this says to me is, we have some of the best safety people in the world

working at d.o.t. that know what they are doing, they did a thorough investigation. but look him as a former member of congress i thought we should listen to these members. we have, and i hope they get the message today. >> david, why are you considering maybe a break override after 10 months of looking at this? why not either -- >> let me answer that. answer is this. again, if you go back to the testimony and the questions that we heard from a number of committees in congress. many members of congress suggested that a brake override system might be helpful. so we need to look into that, and we need to make sure that if that is a solution we do it the

right way, and that it is -- is the kind of solution. and so we're going to look into it. we're going to decide. we haven't decided, but we are going to look into it and investigate it and do our research. remember this, the reason that we have credibility, the reason our safety people have credibility, the reason that nhtsa has credibility is because everything is databased. it's not made up. is not based on a motion. it's not based on some story that somebody told us. we do our investigations and come up with our solutions based on good data. which is why we hired nasa. so we are going to check out the brake override. [inaudible]

>> first of all, i don't agree with what you just said. nobody up here has even insinuated the term that you use, driver air. but i'm going to let at 11 and to this. but the way you characterize this was not characterized that way by anybody up here. go ahead, ron spent one of the things, we described -- we have described as consumers -- as the administrator indicate we want to look across the fleet to see if there are things, are ways to redesign of -- both the design of the battle and the spacing of the pedal that can minimize this kind of misapplication from returning. in fact, there may be something that can be done to minimize this from happening without blaming the people that perhaps the way it is currently designed to be improved. >> my question is the -- >> i will follow-up, john. it was a 10 month investigation where we had no predisposed

conclusion. we were looking at the facts and we took this investigation from the ground floor of looking at any possible situation which would lead to wide open unintended acceleration. this is a safety investigation, period, making sure every toyota was actually safe to drive in this particular situation. ..

>> if you looked at what i said in the hearing on capitol and how i characterize toyota and the way that they go about managing their company, mr. toyota came here to dot, and we visited. vive been to -- i've been to japan. i spent a whole day with mr. toyota. he introduced me to the safety people and a lot of their initiatives. the proof it in the pudding here. i give toyota a great deal of credit for investing $50 million in a safety program in michigan. that's extraordinary. that shows that they really care about safety, that they want to set up shop, a shop of safety in

our country, and so i think they've, you know, they've understood what we do here is serious business, that what we do here is promote safety, and we take a backseat to nobody, and that's what i've always explained to every car manufacturer, and i think that message has gotten out there. yes, sir? >> [inaudible] >> repeat that, mike. >> the question is could five degree throttle opening be a factor in some of the low speed events. did i get that right? yeah, what we found with with the opening is similar to feeling your air conditioner kick on when at a stoplight.

it's a marginal increase in break pressure is 8.5 pounds and bumps up to 9 pounds. if you are going down the road and it jumped up to five degrees, you won't know it happened. we don't think it would affect it in any event. >> yes, sir? >> [inaudible] [inaudible] >> i got your point. give me your question. >> [inaudible] >> i think toyota has been very

cooperative and responsive. i think they understand that at the department of transportation, safety is the number one priority. we treat all car manufacturers the same. we didn't single out my car manufacturer. we never have and never will. our concern is that anybody who buys the car is it's the safest possible car when they drive it out of the showroom, and it continues to be that way, and if it's not, they need to report that to us and we take complaints seriously whether it's against any car manufacturer, and i think toyota understands that now. anybody else? thank you very much -- okay? >> [inaudible] >> well, when toyota announced their $50 million investment in a safety program in michigan, i spoke to mr. toyota. we spoke only about that. he explained what they wanted to

do. i thanked them for their investment. i thanked them for the idea that they realliment to in-- really want to invest in safety, and that was the extent of our discussion. thank you, all, very much. anything else, jill, or is that it? >> [inaudible] >> thank you, everybody. >> if you'd like to find out more about this story, follow the link on our website, c-span.org. coming up a little later here on c-span2, the committee holds a hearing on the ban on abortion funding. live coverage begins at 4 p.m. eastern. a bit later, the first ever tea party town hall meeting with members of congress and tea party activists.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> now today's white house briefing with spokesman robert gibbs. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> did we miss any news? >> yeah, but i'll tell you later. [laughter] >> you can do that as a senior cbs official? >> it'll be out after we put the

transcript out. >> i do have a schedule announcement. tomorrow at 12:30, the president will host speaker boehner, majority leader cantor and mccarthy here at the white house. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> i don't know that they set out that many plates, ms. compton, but i know the president is looking forward to a productive lunch. >> [inaudible] >> i will, i will share that with the cooks. yes? >> is there anything on the agenda you can tell us about? >> well, look, i think the president looks forward to discussing all issues foreign and domestic. obviously, with the heavy impact on the economy and on spending, and i think the president will have a chance to talk through

with them many of the things he outlined in the state of the union, and i have no doubt they have their cares and concerns as well. >> any guidance on the budget? >> no, we will save that for them and you on monday. >> questions about egypt. is the president concerns if he steps down that will undermind the free and fair election? >> i'm sorry? >> if he steps down earlier then -- >> well, look, who leads egypt and who leads egypt when is a determination to be made by the egyptians. what we've talked about throughout this process and what i talked about extensively yesterday is not about personalities, but about a genuine and a real process that leads us with a process that

takes place without delay and produces immediate and irreversible results for the people in egypt. i think there's a series of things they have to do along the way. the dialogue has to be real in order to produce that real change. i think first and foremost as we have talked about throughout this, the government has got to stop arresting protesters and journalists, harassment, beatings, detentions of reporters, of activists, of those involved in civil society. we would call on all of those prisoners as we have to be released immediately. we believe there has to be a

process, and that in this process the results of the free and fair elections that the emergency law be lifted as we talked about many times that specific institutional changes are made, and that we take concrete steps as i've said to free and fair elections, and i will also add this. i think the rhetoric that we see coming out now that simply says that somehow what you see on tv has been drummed up by foreigners is a great -- is at great odds with what we know is actually happening on the ground, so i think that the process of who leads egypt will be determined by egyptians, but what we need to see now is continued progress by the egyptian government to make these important real changes

that demonstrate progress for the people. >> officials at the state department were saying the chances of those changes being acted would be less if the president -- [inaudible] >> i want to be clear that i speak for the president of the united states of america. we are not here to determine who leads egypt and when they lead egypt. that is a problem that only egyptians can solve. as i said yesterday, there's no doubt this is not going to be an easy road. there will be bumps along the way, but it is important that the process that the government undergoes through negotiations with those who seek the representation that they deserve, that it be done in a way that's broadly inclusive. we're not here to determine who

leads egypt. we are, and i think the president was quite, quite clear. the people of egypt are not going back. they've moved forward, and they'll going to continue to move forward, and they're going to need to see progress from their government. >> has president -- [inaudible] >> let me get a full read. i do believe -- i don't know when they spoke precisely. i will try to determine that, but one of the messages that vice president biden and a whole host of government officials have delivered at all levels of egyptian government are many things i outlined, stopping the beatings and detentions, the release of those who have been held or detained, the release of political prairses, lifting the emergency law, concrete constitutional changes that need to take place, and concrete steps that lead towards a free and fair election, and most of all, the notion of somehow of

what we're seeing is drummed up by foreigners is -- there's absolutely no evidence that that's the case. >> egyptian vice president has said there is a timetable for power, and he said today this process is on the right path. is the president satisfied that the process is on the right path, or does he want to see something more tangible? >> i think less important is what we think and more important what the people of egypt think. certainly, there's reports that those who are out protesting today exceed what we've seen in the past several days. i think that is as good an answer for the vice president of egypt that the progress of the people in egypt see and feel. it has to be tangible. it has to be real. it has to be immediate and irreversible. you know, yesterday, i think the

vice president made some particularly unhelpful comments about egypt not being ready for democracy, about not seeing a lift of the emergency law, and i don't -- i don't think that in any way squares with what those seeking greater opportunity and freedom think is a timetable for progress. again, i think that's going to be determined by -- that's going to be determined by the egyptian people. whether or not the government is taking those concrete steps can't be arbitrated by us. we can't do play-by-play on each and every step they take. that's going to be determined by the reaction in cairo and throughout egypt by the people of e joint. >> you have a stake in that process going smoothly? >> we have a stake in stability in egypt, in regional stability. i think that's been a

cornerstone of what we've seen over the past three decades. as i said here on friday, and i think as you've heard the president say, the threat of instability, and you see this again today with the swelling crowds, the threat of instability is in not making that progress, and in not letting the people in egypt see that steps that are being taken along that process are real, it's something that they can feel, and it's something that will end in -- will end in free and fair elections based on a discussion had with a broad range of egyptian society. >> one other topic briefly. on the proposal for the state to state, are you concerned that critics may call this -- the

jobless aids state to state, are you concerned that critics may call this a bailout to the states? >> no, in fact, in many ways it prevents in the future from having exactly to do that. obviously, some states have experienced even greater economic downturns than we have on average at a national level. it's put pressure on the unemployment insurance funds. the president's proposal does two things that are most important. it prevents increases in the federal tax that goes to the unemployment insurance fund, and that's tremendously important given to where we are economically, but it prevents future state bailouts because in the future, states are going to have to rationalize what they offer and how they pay for it.

we are giving help to some states who have had to borrow and have not yet been able to pay back which would legally result in an increase in the federal share that has gotten through a tax on businesses which we don't think makes any sense right now, so let's in states that are overdrawn on this, ensure that we don't place an extra burden on them. let's give them some time in an economic downturn to have what they need to effectively meet the needs of those that are unemployed, and let's give them an understanding that in the future as i said, they're going to have to rationalize what is offered and how they come up with the funds to pay for what

is ultimately offered. jake? >> the protesters according to accounts from reporters on the ground, the predecessors in egypt feel the need to keep protesting because they feel if the reform announcements keep coming from the egyptian government, they fear if they stop protesting, opposition leaders will be targeted, and the egyptian government will clamp down. does the administration agree with that? >> jake, that's not for me. as i said earlier, i don't think there's a lot of utility in our play-by-play of this. i think that the people that are expressing their desire for greater opportunity and freedom are going to continue to express that desire until the government takes the very concrete steps that i outlibbed a minute -- outlined a minute ago to address those concerns, and if they

don't, then those protests will i assume continue. again, i do think it is important that i said this at the very beginning with julie's question which is we have said this quite frankly throughout. the concerns that the people of egypt have cannot, will not, and should not be addressed through violence. it shouldn't be addressed through beatings and detentions and the like, and i think, i think the pressure is only going to be lessened and the demands for greater freedom met through a concrete process. >> even though obviously you're not dictating what egypt needs to do, the government has offered guidance and suggestions as to what the obama administration thinks would work well and what needs to happen although you're not dictating

anything, and one of those suggestions have been you said from the podium that transformation process and transition process cannot start in september. others in the administration have said that they have concerns about anything being rushed because you can't just go to a democracy in 60 days and also a fear that the muslim brotherhood would arise, which if we're saying two months is too soon, and september is too far, what exactly kind of timeline would the administration like? what's the understanding without dictating it, and what suggestions are you making? >> i think we should understand a few things first, jake, is that i guess i guess i would reject the notion of there just being two answers to this; right? in the sense i think you have seen and heard the government of egypt as well as those seeking

greater recognition and freedom. they've all acknowledged that there are some real ingenuine constitutional changes that need to be made before we can have free and fair elections. right now, in order to qualify for the ballot, you go through the process of getting those in parliament, elections that we criticize, to basically sign up and bless your can candidates. you can see those seeking greater freedom might not see that the best way to get to free and fair elections. what you had which is september or immediately in terms of all of these changes, i don't think that's necessarily the case. >> that's what i'm saying. >> i'm saying there has to be a dynamic process to meet and address many of the concerns and the problems where the world can

watch and election that a free and fair. what timeline? i don't think that's for us to determine, but unless or until those that are seeking to have their grievances addressed, until they believe that's happening, the pressure's going to continue, and that's why we continue to advocate for a genuine process of negotiation to see this through. >> and lastly, nbc news, president said that he told president obama and that president obama doesn't understand egyptian culture. did he say that, and what did president obama say? >> i wouldn't read out the specifics of the call. i think, obviously, the president and the administration

have respect for what egypt accomplished over three days and what president mubarak has accomplished, but i think what is clear is what the president said over the past few days that the people of egypt have moved, and they're not going back to what was. >> track the progress on the ground in egypt, what can you look at today that was different from yesterday or progress being made? >> dan, again, i don't want to be -- just as i'm not going to be the arbiter of what freedom of speech is in egypt, i don't think it makes sense for us to be the arbiter for whether today meant good progress or whether today was enough progress. i think that the world quite frankly understands what needs

to happen. we've enumerated some ideas, many of which i just said, that would demonstrate to the egyptian people that a process that is serious, immediate and irreversible is underway, and that's a process that must continue. we have a long road to go to get to free and fair elections. >> but the president yesterday talked about the progress. >> what i think he alluded to is there's the beginning of a process to do that, okay? but setting up and having a process to do that is just part of it. now we got to see -- we've got to see some, and you heard vice president biden say over the weekend in his readout that we need to understand what the arc of this is, and we need to see as the egyptian people do, most importantly, need to see

progress along that arc. >> has the president gone to his indulgence with the community and sort of questioned them to sort of take a look at other hot spots perhaps like what happened in egypt could be at risk in happening on other countries? >> without getting into intelligence, obviously, the intelligence community provides daily an update on what it sees happening in countries both in the middle east and throughout the world. >> has the president applied more pressure now saying, you need to look at this with more focus. >> the question is that that hasn't already happened. >> you said earlier it's not about personality, but you talked about unhealthy comments. if there's a personality in there who is not helping, and maybe hurting the process, it is

about personalities. >> i think people have unnecessarily looked at what people have said for us to determine who should be the next leader of egypt and when that change should happen. that's not for us to determine. that is -- the vice president is, has been tasked with the process of including opposition groups, those in civil society who have not been represented in government along a series of negotiations along this process to end in free and fair elections. that's a process we support. that certainly has to happen, but the notion that we somehow laid hands on a particular person to lead israel or lead egypt is just not the case. >> i'm not saying you lay hands

on them to lead, but you certainly could voice an opinion that he's not the right person to be in there. >> well, look, i was pretty clear yesterday on what i don't think anybody in the world thinks represents progress. the process though, chip -- we cannot determine every actor in that process, the timeline of every action in the process. >> but you can have opinions and say we prefer he not be there. >> as i said a minute ago, we're not the play-by-play announcer that represents progress in egypt, chip. the people of egypt are not looking for people in this country to tell them what constitutes the meaning of those freedoms. why do you think we can do that? why do you think we can determine who can be in charge?

that's -- that is only something determined by those who are in egypt, and those who are taking part in that process. i do think, chip, that the world will know, and we will see it through the eyes of those who desire greater representation, we'll know if progress is being made at a pace in which the egyptian people believe it should be happening, and that's, i think, what we're all watching. >> you're right, and the egyptians and protesters -- [laughter] >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> he's not a play-by-play. >> right. somebody can update the video. i'm not a play-by-play commentator. [laughter]

>> it would be a good gig. protesters say they understand united states is not in a position to determine what happens here, but on the other hand, they are so deeply frustrated that the president say the right things about human rights and universal rights and freedom of speech and everything else, and then they don't understand how he can then not demand that mubarak gets out of there. >> but then, i guess the question would be, i guess you'd ask the well, well, then, would you have less determine who that person is? would you have less determine what the counsel is who decides this? what that counsel can debate matches the definitions of access, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly? you know, that is not a task or a series of tasks that i think many in egypt want us to do, and i don't think, i don't think

that the cares and concerns of those that we see each day is going to be met by a process that is dictated by somebody else. it has to be a process that involves directly the egyptian people, and again, we will see based on what happens with those that continue to protest, whether the pace of what we understand, we all understand needs to happen, what the government of egypt acknowledged needs to happen, we will all understand if the pacing meets the demand. >> real quickly, the lunch tomorrow, is that going to be a weekly thing? >> i don't think it's a weekly thing. i know we had senator mcconnell in late last week. i think the president, as you heard him say at the beginning

of the lame duck session, that we needed to do better to reach out, and we need to have those discussions, and i think this is certainly part of that. >> and just before the three republicans? >> that's how i understand it. go ahead, sir. >> robert, is the president comfortable if mubarak stays through september? >> mike, i don't know how many times i can say two things. we're not the play-by-play commentators, and that's not for us to determine. >> last week you said the transition needs to start yesterday, and the impression we all got, i think, is that mubarak needed to go, so now we're trying to get a sense -- >> i think we've been very, very clear, and very, very consistent that we are not going to pick those leaders. we are not going -- as i just said, we're not going to define the membership in this process. the transition, the

transition -- remember, the transition we see throughout the process happened many, many times on the road to free and fair elections, and quite frankly, there's a lot to do in that process. the fact that that transition has to start as the president said now and as we repeated since, it's because many of the things that i outlined are going to require those discussions and those negotiations, so it is again, it is not up for us to determine the personalities and who's going to lead and when they're going to lead and when they're not going to lead. that's the job of the people of egypt, and that's the tough work that's involved in a democracy. >> last crack at it. [laughter] does the white house believe that protests will stop as long

as mubarak is there? >> i think that, i think that you will continue to see those exercise their great desire to be recognized and to enjoy the freedoms and opportunities that they wish to. i think you will continue to see that unless or until the process of an orderly transition that is broad based begins to show immediate and irreversible change. i think that's what the egyptian people want and what the world is waiting for. >> based on the o'reilly interview. you said he didn't raise taxes. taxpayer groups said in effect he raised taxes, but also cut taxes. i'm wondering, do you guys disagree with that assessment? >> i have not seen what the group has said. i would note that i think the

congressional budget office released figures yesterday that show for the third consecutive year, the american people are paying less in taxes than they did during the previous administration. chuck? >> is it fair to say our policy towards egypt has forever changed? >> well, we -- let me give you a broad answer to this because i think obviously we want to see the continued robust partnership that we've had, the stability in the region and around the world that that partnership has brought, i think egypt has forever changed. i think that what the president said -- >> [inaudible] >> well, i think, look, again, i don't want to get into hype hypotheticals about what things look like in a year or in five years, but i think there's no doubt that what the president said that egypt is not going

back, i think the -- what we've seen transpire over the past 10 days has been nothing short of remarkable. i don't think that anybody, you know, we have other administrations called for the type of change you're seeing now, it's happened in a very, very short period of time, but it is, when you look at the size and the scope of the announcements that have been made, it's astonishing. >> i ask, i guess when does our policy change towards yemen? when there's a -- [inaudible] >> let's be clear -- >> [inaudible] >> this was the case when the president, when the president talked to the president of egypt several weeks ago about what was happening in the middle east, he reiterated that it calls for the government of egypt to institute

the type of reforms that we have long fought. >> we are now actively, after there were protests, we as a u.s. government actively got involved in pushing them. >> no, no, no. >> [inaudible] >> no, no. >> we wouldn't have done that unless the ambassador of the king of jordan -- >> you now generalized across the sweep of the middle east. let's go backwards just a tad. we have in saudi arabia, in yemen, and many of the countries you discussed, talked to them as our administration, as the previous administrations have about greater access to freedom, greater access to freedom of speech, assembly, all of those things. our position on bringing democracy to the middle east and bringing greater freedoms to those people wasn't developed as a result of what happened in tenesia or what we saw in egypt. ambassador went for a specific

message and conversation and to report back. that was an instance that based on the fact we were seeing rapid change, but the broad notion of what we want to see happen in countries in the middle east and throughout the world is shaped by the values of which with we started out. >> what happened in egypt spurred your administration, the administration to get more active in the situation in egypt. is that now going to forever change or -- [inaudible] >> again -- >> get more active in jordan or do you wait for a ground swell? >> again, i think you're generalizing broadly. obviously, we have a teach that is monitors and works through o whole host of bilateral relationships. because many of the countries that you just mentioned, we have very important relationships with, but -- and look, as events

dictate, we will respond to them. i just don't want to generalize across countries. again -- >> that happened before we changed policies in other countries. >> as we've spoken about our universal values, i think it's important not no generalize across a platform of countries that again as i've said may be at different stages in their own political development. >> earlier today, you set out basically the position on you want congress to reenact, to continue the powers you have with some of these intelligences. how did you ensure supporters of yours who didn't like the president's decision in 2008 when he voted for the changes in the law that gave an expanse of power. how do you know they're not being abused?

>> first and foremost -- >> how do you monitor? >> there's courts to do that. this was a debate that happened in 2005 and 2006 and 2007 and even in 2008 that, look, there were some who wanted to do away with fisa once and the court system that and as the president said, it is important that we have a mechanism that watches the watchers. that is, in this instance, an important aspect of what the judicial branch does. >> i mean, you know, at some point did you allow scrutiny on this outside? >> again, the role in government to do that is through a very specialized set of developed courts in order to ensure that what is done meets the law. >> you -- [inaudible]

>> again, you know, obviously this is, we -- there are important activities that need to be reauthorized. >> [inaudible] >> the president and first lady requested an absentee ballot. i don't know if that's been filled out, but i can put that on the list. >> on the unemployment proposal, are you at all concerned that this is going to be read as an increased tax on businesses at a time when the administration is working hard to mend this? >> no, this policy if enacted would prevent further federal tax increases, would help states make up for the short falls they have, and give them time, as i've said, to rationalize what they offer and how they pay for

it. in other words, you have in 2011 and 2012 and parts of 2013, the ability to make the type of structural changes that a state would need to make in order to ensure that, again, what they offer and how they pay for it, that that's met up so that we can do this responsibly. >> do you think that they will take up the opportunity to increase the tax? >> that -- i think what we think has to happen in those outyears is that you cannot -- you cannot continue to offer something at a state level; right? that is not ultimately supported by the base of with which you're funding it; right? those are the discussions that are happening and have happened for many years at the state level. they are happening now at the federal level. in terms of getting our fiscal

house in order, i think whether it happens at the federal level or state level, we have to make some tough decisions about ensuring that we can pay for what we're offering. >> one other issue. how does that in terms of the announcement of the vice president on the rail investment, how would you pay for that? >> that will be in the budget on monday. yes, sir? >> thank you. back in 1979, president carter was criticized for allowing the shaw to come here for medical treatment. if it came to the point with president mubarak has to flee, would the u.s. allow him? >> that's hypothetical at this point. >> on the cbo report, didn't the report say that americans are paying so much less in taxes, but tax receipts are down because so many people have been laid off. can you clarify?

>> i direct you to the report, yeah. >> robert, is it accurate to say that the administration extended one of its better expression of a better expectation of the timetables that changed in egypt? >> it is accurate to say that vice president biden in discussions with vice president of egypt in discussions that we have had government to government, we want to understand that they have a timetable to make change, yes. >> what would you say to somebody in e just a minute, especially people on the streets who told reporters there they think the pressure from the united states is easing up after hearing things that have been said in the past few days? >> i hope they listen to what we've said. i think -- i don't think i've eased up in any way. i don't think that -- i don't think what we've said, i don't think what the president has said has in any way eased up on

what we need to see. i said that the transition should begin yesterday. what i was asked the day after the president spoke and the day after president mubarak spoke, and i think, again, you're going to continue to see pressure within the people of egypt unless or until the process makes those type of changes, so i think that we have enumerated the universal values that we believe everyone should have, and i think we have been clear in making sure that the government of egypt understands that they have to take those concrete steps. >> where do things stand on the aide review? >> we -- no different than when i mentioned it i think a couple of fridays ago which is we will

monitor the actions in response to what is happening in cairo and in egypt and make determinations as to whether that would affect our aide, and that, we continue to mop tore that. -- monitor that. >> on the unemployment insurance, is that the primary way that the administration sees this federal government aiding states in their fiscal situations? >> look, this is obviously a particular situation because if states are -- if states are borrowing off of an ui account, not able to pay that back, then the law says the rate has to increase at a federal share on businesses. we don't think that makes sense right now. we think that we ought to make sure that that doesn't happen, that states have a chan to rationalize again what they offer, and that in the meantime,

are helping other states that might fall into things that you've seen in michigan and south carolina and louisiana with that fund. >> are there proposals in the budget that helps? >> i shouldn't preview the budget. >> also, does the administration consider the fiscal situation that states are facing a crisis category yet? >> i think without getting into specific word or series of words, obviously, i think in each stage of or each year that we've been in office, you've seen tremendous short falls. obviously, there are a number of states that are experiencing particularly acute short falls, and that has an impact on the economy. >> in the lunch tomorrow, talk about the thinking of why they're having just republicans

or democratic leadership? >> i think the president fakes the opportunity to see and meet with a whole host of different leadership entities and things like that. as i said, i think it was friday that senator mcconnell was here to have lunch with the president, so i think, i think over the course of the next many weeks you'll see folks in here to see the president and the administration as we move forward. >> is there a sense he can get more done if it's more republicans opposed to the republican and democrat clash? >> i think, again, i go back to draw on what the president said in december or i don't remember, december or november at this point, but late last year, he needed to do a better job of reaching out, and i think, you know, hearing what their concerns are, and quite frankly, understanding that the house republicans now play the important role of governing half

of the legislative branch. they're going -- they're involved in the responsibility of governing, and i think an exchange of ideas on the issues we face are important. >> and on different issues last week, any advice on your success sore you want to share with us? >> no. we've had many private conversations about that. >> one domestic and another international. would the u.s. come to israel for assistance? >> i think regardless of the situation facing any government in the region, our friendship and partnership and our alliance with israel is unchanged. >> and on the washington, those stories, will be taking up arms in a very interesting story. what's that say about the level

of confidence about the american people? >> i read a lot this morning, but i don't know that i read that one. >> take a look at that. >> i will. >> with respect to the vice president of egypt, just want to be clear of the call of the vice president. if the administration sees this and say something to object to that? >> well, i object to and thought what he said yesterday was unacceptable in the process. >> [inaudible] >> no, again, i think as we talked about yesterday, i think there's a counterpart to counterpart relationship with vice president biden and the vice president of egypt as a continued channel to discuss the process and pathway to a free and fair election. >> on that process, one of the criticisms made of it is it's not cruisive at this point. has that point been made? >> it has, and both privately

and publicly. again, i -- unless or until there's a broad base of those that are not currently represented in government, unless or until those involved in the process, i think you're going to see the reaction that you see from the people of egypt. yes, sir? >> one of the things of the different reports of the three-way meeting, american, pakistani, and afghan foreign ministers is now in question because the continued attention to the u.s. academic -- [inaudible] is that true? >> i think state has better details on that, and i'll point you to that. >> thank you, robert. any advice on your successor on press policy and access, and do you have any regrets about -- >> i should probably say no to all these questions. >> do you have thiewts about --

thoughts about things going on the last two years that you wish had gone better? >> i'll say this, and i don't want to answer for you all or anybody in the country, but i think if you do a job for a specific amount of time and look back and say you wouldn't have done anything differently, you probably haven't thought back about what you did. look, i take my transcripts home every night, and i read them. if there's a time in which i've read that transcript and i thought, wow, perfect. i did it all just right. i mean, it may happen on thursday night, we deponent brief that -- brief that day -- [laughter] but under the notion we don't look back and think you would have done things differently? look, i will have quite a bit of time to more apply foe -- focus on it. i think, and i'll go back to arie because i avoided doing this and you repeated his

question almost verbatim, and i swallowed the hook. [laughter] look, i think you have to have have -- we've discussed in pretty broad detail and great depths the situation that's transpiring thousands of miles away. this is -- when things like that happen, it's more than just -- this is more than just a conversation that's happening between this side of the room and this side of the room. it's happening and people are watching it not just throughout this country, but throughout this world, and your questions and my answers are translated in languages that are spoken in -- continents far aware.

i think it demonstrates the importance of a strong freedom of the press, a sharing of information, i think the reason that -- i think the reason that we can speak about the universal values that we hold so dear and we can speak about it halfway across the world is because it's something that we think is so tremendously important. >> any advice to your successor? >> that was arie's question. we have talked a lot. i'm not going to share that advice. i'm going to let that counsel remain private, but we, jay and i, have talked a lot about the importance of this job, and i don't mean that as a personal thing. this will long outlive, in a country like this, it will long

outlive the personality of myself just as it will long outlive the permits that came before me and will long outlive those who come next. >> [inaudible] >> i'm not going to share that. >> robert, based on what you're saying, there was a story in the "new york times" a few days ago, is the u.s. was involved in conversations with the egyptians to have mubarak turn over power immediately. >> i'm not getting into conversations that are had between the government. >> you've been clear that the united states is not supposed to be getting into the way of mubarak leading, and suggested strongly we have not tried to get him out immediately. have discussions like that taken place? >> i am not going to get into the details of every conversation that is had with our government and other foreign governments, but i want to be

clear that these are decisions that can and can only be made by the egyptians. >> the united states has not tried to remove mubarak from power? >> i don't know how many times i can answer the same question. no, i am, you're not accepting the answer. >> you talk about what the egyptian people want, and everybody can agree that mubarak is a oppressive regime, but there's stories about the square, but how do we know what the egyptian people want? >> i think that's why we don't -- that's why we are not the ones checking off on what the process has to be. >> if you poll people there what they want -- and they may want what you're saying, but how do we know what they want? >> i mean, i think the reason you can ask me questions # is

because though questions are enumerated in the stories i read from different outlets in this room. it's written on signs in tahir square. it's held by people, but again, keith, i think -- >> people in the mall with signs, it doesn't mean the majority of americans support whatever they are out there for. >> you are enumerating far better than i could why it is not for us to arbitrate. now, if somebody holds a sign up on the washington mall, it may not constitute the majority of opinions in this country, but it probably constitutes the majority of the opinion that that person holds, and guess what? this is a great and exciting country that allows anybody to walk out on the mall with a sign that expresses their view points, but that is -- what you are saying is the exact reason why our government suspect going to determine -- isn't going to determine the

definition of individual or group freedoms in a country like egypt. we can talk about the universal values of free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to communicate across the interpret or social -- internet or social neshes, but it is up to or some entity in our government to determine what the scope of freedom of speech looks like in egypt. that is for the precise reason we give the answer that this is up to the egyptians. it's not a way of simply saying that phrase over and over again. it's what we believe. >> you're insisting on them doing certain things and justifying by the will of the egyptian people. i've heard you say that many times. it's not a totally hand-off process. >> i think you should just forget any newspaper or turn on any television set inside of this building, and i think

you'll see many -- do i know every person's concern in egypt? i'll go way out on a limb and say i do not. again, i don't think you have to have -- you could pull up your rabbit ears and find out what people are concerned about in cairo because it's all over the tv. >> a question about senator mcconnell's lunch. was it just him? what did they discuss? >> it was just him, and it's the same that will be discussed in the lunch tomorrow. >> any democratic leaders over last week in the white house? >> none that i'm aware of, but i will check. >> robert, on the issue of the meeting and finding commonground and stability, realistically how long does the administration think they will be able to find common ground in this whole era of that right now while walking into presidential campaigns and

that nature. >> i don't know how many months the presidential campaign is, but it's a long ways away. april, there are important things that have to happen in congress and around the country to meet the concerns and to meet the problems that we face. the challenges that we have that require that we take action on well in advance of the calendar of a presidential election. >> right now -- [inaudible] >> look, that's what happens in this town. but, again, i think the clear message from the american people in the election was that they don't need that. they don't want that. they are looking for -- they are looking for two parties to be able to sit down and have those conversations and work out answers to those problems. i think it's what's required. it's not what may happen. >> now, also, i asked you last

week about president's involvement -- >> yeah, i will see if i have any update on that or if i find out if the president and first lady voted. >> i want to ask something about your departure. you had the decision to leave, but from day one, you enjoy that podium. >> as i said 100 times, maybe 10,000 times. if you didn't enjoy some element of this, you'd do it three days and turn in your pass and hope nobody ever found you again. [laughter] if you don't have some enjoyment in -- >> [inaudible] >> i assume you do to. well, some of you have contracts. look, again, first of all, i don't want to turn this into my fond fair well. it is the least favorite topic i have. >> it's about you.

>> if you were to have somebody in this job that didn't enjoy doing this job, it is one the most challenging jobs i think that is had in all of in government for the precise reason we are talking about a subject that can influence what happens 10 miles and 10,000 miles away, but if you didn't have some enjoyment in this job, like i said, it would compound. you couldn't do it long. .. continued to

happen. this is a process that is not going to take a matter of days or weeks. it's going to take months if not years. so i think this is a long process that will involve stakeholders at all levels with both political parties weighing in on their ideas about how we meet the goal of reforming the way corporate taxes are done, lowering that rate but keeping it deficit neutral, yes, ma'am. >> i have two questions. you said many times of the

egyptian army, many of the previous and current leaders are part of the military. do you trust them they will lead the transition to the next election? >> two things, one i think we have -- we have rightly, i think, given some praise to the actions that haven't been taken, that many feared might be taken with an army deployed and hundreds of thousands if not millions of protesters. i think it's important also that we have -- we talked about today and we have talked about this previously about continued restraint and adherence to

nonviolence and assurance that anything involving harassment or beating or detention is ended immediately. so we will continue to watch as i've said throughout this the process of -- of their reaction. secondly, again, i think the determination about the progress that's being made of free and fair elections will be determined in egypt. >> we have one more. >> i have a second question which is the british foreign minister william hague it's time for the administration take bold steps in israel-palestinian peace process considering what's happening in the middle east. >> well, i think the president has and this administration has been from day one actively involved in seeking a lasting peace between israel and the

palestinians. and we understand and we know that our lack of involvement by this country is not likely to produce the outcome that the world hopes for with peace. only through active engagement involvement can that happen. we have and we will continue to do that but just like in this instance, we cannot construct or force on those two entities -- something that they're unwilling to take steps to do themselves. >> you started off by calling for the arrest of journalists to stop. our own reporting shows that the military police weren't involved. do you still think that the egyptian military showed professionalism, impartiality and restraint. >> i would refer you to what i said a second ago. obviously, the restraint that we

saw has been important. without getting into who may or may not be involved, any involvement -- look, the government of egypt has a strict responsibility to its citizens to assure their safety and security. to ensure that they are able to exercise their right to protest in a peaceful way. and that depose for foreign journalists who are there to cover that story. i watched yesterday a couple of interviews with two journalists from fox that -- the pictures were -- the pictures were hard to watch. the after-effects several days later of whomever that was beating, detaining, harassing those reporters, that has to stop regardless of who is either

in charge of or -- >> we're leaving the last few minutes of this to go live to capitol hill for a hearing on legislation that would expand restrictions on federal funding of abortion. the chairman of the subcommittee representative trent franks just gaveled the hearing in. >> this is the very first constitution subcommittee hearing in this the new 112th congress. and it is such a privilege to be the new chairman of this subcommittee and to offer a heartfelt welcome to all of the members, the witnesses and the observers. let me take a little side-note here. rule 11 of the house rules provides that the chairman of the committee make breaches of order and decorum gi senses you'res in the hearing. presently we have people standing and makes the order not -- in order in the hearing room. so members of the room must

behave that in an orderly fashion and i say that respectfully but otherwise they will be removed in the hearing room so hopefully you will sit down. okay. all right. it was once said hold on, my friends to the constitution and to the republic for which it stands. for miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years may never happen again. so hold on to the constitution for if the american constitution should fall there will be anarchy throughout the world. our founding fathers wrote the words of our constitution down for us because they do not want us to forget that their true meaning or to otherwise fall prey to those who would deliberately undermine or destroy it. this has always been the preeminent reason why we write down documents, declarations or constitutions in the first place. to preserve their original

meaning and intent. protecting the lives of innocent americans and their constitutional rights is why those of us in this room are all here. and indeed this is why congress itself exists. the phrases and the fifth and fourteenth amendments capsulate our entire constitution when they proclaim that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. those words are a crystal clear reflection of the proclamation of the declaration of independence that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unail i can't believe rights, those being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness those words are the essence of america and our commitment to them for more than two centuries has set america apart as the flagship of human freedom in the entire world. and yet unspeakable suffering and tragedy have occurred whenever we have strayed from those words. our own united states supreme

court ruled that millions of men, women and children were not persons under the constitution because their skin was black. it took a horrible civil war and the deaths of over 600,000 americans to reverse that unspeakable tragedy. and we saw the same arrogance in 1973 when the supreme court said the unborn child was not a person under the constitution. and we have since witnessed the silent deaths of now over 50 million innocent little baby boys and baby girls who died without the protection the constitution gave them and without the protection this congress should have given them. h.r. 3 is a bipartisan bill that takes a step to turn america away from that tragedy. the bill forms part of the new majority to new america codify the hite amendment currently funding taxpayer abortion in all federal programs. it protects health care workers right of conscience so they cannot be coerced to participate in abortion procedures as a

condition of their employment. [inaudible] >> the capitol police are in the process of restoring order here and we're going to go ahead and continue. the speaker of the house, john boehner directed that this bill receive the designation h.r. 3 as, quote, one of our highest legislative priorities. h.r. 3 is intended to continue the same policy as the hite amendment. the hite amendment prohibits taxpayer funding of abortion excluding rape and the mother's health. this will not be a departure of the decades of implementation of the hite amendment and to assure lawmakers that funding policy as it relates to cases of rape will not be altered by this bill. the second part of this bill provides necessary protection for health care workers who will not perform a refer of abortions as a matter of conscience.

those who believe that a pregnancy is a circumstance which presents with two patients, the mother and the unborn child cannot in good conscience do harm to that unborn child and, therefore, should not be coerced into performing abortions as would be required under the current health care system. neither is said that government is what it spends. planned parenthood alone boortz a quarter of a million unborn babies every year, all the while it receives hundreds of millions of dollars in federal, state or local taxpayer funds. this legislation is really about whether the role of america's government is to continue to fund a practice that takes the lives of over 1 million little americans every year. even some of those who do not consider themselves pro-life strongly object to their taxpayers going to pay for abortion, their dollars. i believe the intensity of this debate has something to do with our collective conscience.

perhaps it's because ultrasound technology has begun to demonstrate to all reasonable observers both the humanity of the victim and the inhumanity of what is done to them. we are beginning to realize as americans that somehow we are bigger than abortion on demand. and that 50 million dead children is enough. and we're beginning to ask the real question, does abortion take the life of a child? if it does not, then all of this here today is a nonissue. but if it does, then those of us sitting here in the chambers of freedom are in the midst of the grateful human genocide in the history of humanity. thomas jefferson said that the care of human life and its happiness and not its destruction is the chief and only object of good government. and, ladies and gentlemen, using taxpayer dollars to fund the killing of innocent, unborn children does not liberate their mothers.

it is not the cause for which those lying out under the white stones in arlington national cemetery died, and it is not good government. abraham lincoln called upon all of us to remember america's founding fathers and, quote, their enlightened belief that nothing stamped with the divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on or degraded and imbreweded by its fellows. >> he reminded us those he called posterity that when in the distant future some man, some faction, some interest should set up the doctrine that some were not entitled to the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that, quote, their posterity, that's us, ladies and gentlemen, their posterity might look up to the declaration of independence and take courage to renew the battle which their fathers began. may that be the commitment of all of us today. i look so forward from hearing from the witnesses and i now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, mr. nadler, for his opening statement.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i first want to note that this is our first subcommittee hearing of the 112th congress and your first as chairman. i want to congratulate you. although our jurisdiction includes some of the most difficult issues before the congress, some of which have historically been very contentious, i look forward to working with you in the spirit of comity to give what we both know strongly and sincerely-held views the fair hearing that they deserve. having chaired this subcommittee for two congresses, and having served as the ranking -- as the ranking member, rather, for several congresses before that, i appreciate what a challenge this subcommittee can be and i look forward to working with you. today's hearing concerns what may be the most -- the most difficult and divisive issue we

will have the opportunity to consider. a woman's right to make decisions about her own body, whether to become pregnant, whether to continue a pregnancy or whether to terminate it has long been a right protected by the constitution. whether or not people think that it is a good idea or a fair reading of the constitution or morally correct, it remains the law of the land. congress has for more than three decades used economic coercion to try to prevent women from exercising their constitutionally protected choice by prohibiting use of federal funds for abortions. the only legal health care procedure subject to such a ban. until now, that coercion was directed against the poor and against women dependent on the government for health care, military personnel and their dependents, prison inmates and federal employees. we have thus developed a two-tiered system which people with means have the right to choose but members of vulnerable

populations do not. now comes the no taxpayer funding for abortion act h.r. 3, which is really misnamed but it really has to do with taxpayer funding for abortions because way beyond that question in places government in the middle of private choices by families and businesses about how they wish to spend their own health care dollars. this legislation represents an entirely new front in the war against women and their families. after two years of hearing my republican colleagues complain that government should not meddle in the private insurance market or in private health care choices, i was stunned to see legislation so obviously designed to do exactly that. it seems that many republicans believe in freedom, provided no one uses that freedom in a way they find objectionable. that is a strange understanding of freedom. even more stunning, this bill

contains a huge tax increase on families, businesses and the self-employed if they spend their own money. let me repeat that, their own money on insurance that covers abortions or services. the power to tax is the power to destroy and here the taxing power is being used quite deliberately to destroy the right of every american to make private health care decisions free from government interference. a republican tax increase, a republican support for government intrusion of private health care choices -- you're supposed to say you heard it first but if you read the bill, you saw it there first. i'm equally surprised to find out that my republican colleagues think that a tax exemption or credit is a form of government funding. what happened to all the rhetoric about it being our money? or does that only apply in certain circumstances. do we have to call every tax exemption or credit a form of

government funding for the recipient? i'm sure there will be many businesses, charities and religious denominations that will be along to find out that they are being -- that they are receiving government subsidies. i also join many other americans in being absolute horrified -- well, before i get to that. let me say among others who should be horrified, the churches and the synagogues and mosques that will now have to presumably give up their tax exemptions because of tax exemptions are government subsidies and that's a direct establishment of religion. and the logic is inexorable. either a exemption is government funding in which case we cannot give tax exemptions to churches, synagogues or mosques or it is not in which case this bill has no claim on anything. and i also join many other americans being absolutely horrified that the sponsors of this bill seem not to know what rape and incest are. rape according to this legislation is only forcible in

quotes rape. date rape drugs, sex with minors with the mentally impaired are sponsors of this bill are not really rape anymore. incest is no longer incest. instead, it is now only incest with a minor that we have to be concerned about which means, i guess, that incest with a high school senior doesn't count. have the extremes really taken such a hold on this debate that we cannot even agree to help children and teenagers or the victims of predators? is there no compassion left in this capitol? i have heard that the rape and incest provisions are going to be removed from this bill or modified because of the outcry it has raised -- they have raised. but first we have not seen such an amendment yet and second, what this position -- even if the amendment what does this provision in the first place say about the mindset and the intent of the legislation? there's also a provision in this bill that in the name of conscience of health care

providers would allow any health care provider or institution to refuse to provide an abortion to a woman who would die if she doesn't get the abortion. it would refuse to -- it would be allowed to refuse to provide an abortion in the emergency room even if the medical judgment is that without that abortion, she would die. they would let that woman die right there in the emergency room and the government would be powerless to do anything or penalize it or prevent it. under the provisions of the bill insist that the hospital not let the woman die, section 311 of the bill would allow the hospital to sue the government and in the case of a state or locality strip that community of all federal funding until the jurisdiction relented and allowed women to die if they needed an abortion to prevent the death. that's the new definition it seems of pro-life. so, mr. chairman, let's start off on the right foot. the no taxpayer funding of abortion act is not really about

taxpayer funding. it's about government interfering with private health care decisions. it is not about protecting the innocent. it is about creating appalling even life threatening situations for women. it is a tax increase of historic proportion. finally, if passed, it would eliminate the private market for abortion insurance coverage. the chief sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smithers has been very clear about his purpose. when he introduced this bill, he cited a study by an institute that showed a decline in the rate of abortions of approximately 25% when funding is cut off. what that proves, if it proves anything, is that economic coercion works. in the remarks we just heard from the chairman made crystal clear that the unashamed purpose of this bill is to use economic coercion to prevent women and families from exercising their constitutional right to make a choice of abortion, even with their own funds. it is an unprecedented attack on

women, on families, on the constitution and for that matter on the private insurance market. let's not pretend this bill has anything to do with government funding. it does not. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, mr. nadler. and without objection, other members' opening statements will be made part of the record. >> mr. chairman? may i be recognized for unanimous consent request? >> yes. >> thank you, mr. chairman i ask unanimous consent request -- i'm sorry. i ask unanimous consent to place into the record testimony submitted by our colleague the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, miss norton. the gentlewoman be requested that she be presented testimony at this hearing because there's a provision in the bill that specifically pertains to her district, the district of columbia and to no other who we are told the chairman of the full committee has denied that request. i'm sorry. i regret she was denied the permission to testify.

and i hope that this has been a misunderstanding and that the future members of congress will as is the practice when i was chairman of the subcommittee would be permitted on request to testify as witnesses especially if there's something to do specifically with their own district. and i ask unanimous consent to place her statement and my statement in the record. >> without objection, your statement and hers will be placed in the record. >> thank you. >> just to clarify the issue, mr. nadler, chairman smith has decided that as a general policy the judiciary committee and its subcommittees will only have one panel of witnesses for each hearing and that the panel will consist of no more than four witnesses. and the minority is able to select a witness and if they would like to invite a member to testify, that's certainly something they can do. the chairman did not refuse ms. norton's ability to be here. she just had to be chosen as one of the minority witnesses. there may be times where the committee is not able to

accommodate every individual who wishes to testify, however, the record always remains open for five legislative days for others to submit testimony if they wish. this is a bright line rule that is not meant to discriminate against any particular potential witness. it's meant to ensure that hearings are succinct enough so that members are able to hear all of the witnesses and participate in a meaningful way. >> mr. chairman? >> mr. nadler. >> thank you, i'd simply like to comment on that. i have never objected -- some committees in this congress have three and four panels. i certainly never objected and sometimes i welcome this committee generally only has one panel. it makes life easier and more succinct. i'm not objecting to that. now, however, when the minority has only one witness, which has been the practice under democrats and republicans and certainly that's not a change here, but in certain circumstances it presents a quandary. here we have a bill dealing for the most part with a broad issue of taxpayer funding of

everything that i talked about. and a specific provision dealing with the district of columbia. to say that the minority could have ms. norton as the witness to talk about d.c. is to say we couldn't talk about the basic provisions of the bill. and if we choose to have one witness on the basic provisions of the bill then you can't talk -- then ms. norton is denied the opportunity to talk about her specific application to her district and that is why when i was chairman -- if a member desired to testify, especially if there was something to do with his or her district, we would always provide a separate panel for that. and for partisan purposes you might say, if it's a republican we'll have a democrat. but it allows that flexibility in the general rule and i would hope in the future that flexibility would be attended to. >> thank you, mr. nadler. if the witnesses would come forward and be seated. we have a very distinguished panel of witnesses today. each of the witnesses' written

statements will be entered into the record in its entirety. and i ask that each witness summarize his or her testimony in five minutes or less. to help you stay within that time there's a timing light on your table. when the light switches from green to yellow, you will have 1 minute to conclude your testimony. when the light turns red it signals that the witnesses' 5 minutes have expired. our first witness is mr. richard m. doerflinger, associate director of the secretary of pro-life activities, united states conference of catholic bishops. he has worked for over 30 years. his writings on medical ethics and public policy made -- include contributions to the journal of law medicine and ethics, duquesne law review, the kennedy institute of ethics journal, the national catholic bioethics quarterly and the american journal of bioethics. the may 22nd 2004 journal featured mr. doerflinger as one of the twelve experts whose ideas are shaping the national

debate on the use and abuse of biotechnology. our second witness is cathy ruse, senior fellow for legal studies at the family research council offices. mrs. ruse worked previously as frc's legal director zest a legal council and national center for children and families. we're proud to note that mrs. ruse -- ms. ruse served as chief counsel of this very subcommittee. "wired" magazine has called her one of the most influential opinion-shapers in the country. our third witness is professor sarah rosenbaum, the harold and jane hearst professor of health, law and policy and chair of the department of health policy at washington university school of public health services. professor rosenbaum also directs the hearst health law and policy program and the center for health services research and policy and holds appointments in the schools of medicine and

health sciences and law. and without objection, all members will have five legislative days within which to submit materials for the record. it is the practice of this subcommittee to swear in the witnesses so if you'll all please and stand and raise your right hand. do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god. thank you and please be seated. i now recognize our first witness, richard doerflinger for five minutes. sir, would you turn on that microphone. >> is that it? >> yes, sir, thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for this opportunity to present our views in support of the no taxpayer funding for abortion act. this bill will write into permanent law a policy on which has been strong, popular and congressional agreement for over 35 years. the federal government should not use tax dollars to support or promote elective abortion. that principle has been embodied

in the hite amendment and other provisions governing a wide range of foreign and domestic programs and has consistently had the support of the american people. even courts insisting on a constitutional right to abortion had said that alleged right, quote, implies no limitation on the authority of a state to make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion and to implement that judgment by the allocation of public funds. in 1980 the u.s. supreme court said the hite amendment is an exercise of the legitimate, congressional interest in protecting potential life. adding, quote, abortion is inherently different from other medical procedures because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life. in our view, the courts only mistake that with the phrase potential life in our view unborn children are actually alive until they are made actually dead by abortion. while congress' policy has been consistent for decades, its

implementation and practice has been piecemealed, confusion and sometimes sadly inadequate. gaps or loopholes have been discovered in this patchwork of provisions over the years highlighting the need for permanent and consistent policies across the federal government. last year, congress passed major health care reform legislation with at least four different policies on abortion funding ranging from a ban on such funding on one section of the bill to a potential mandate for such funding on another. as h.r. 3 has been enacted before that debate began. the debate would not have been about abortion. to support by catholics and pro-life americans would have been removed and the final legislation would not have been so badly compromised by provisions that place unboon human lives at grave risk. h.r. 3 would prevent problems and confusions on abortion funding in future legislation. ..

one of many conscious provisions beginning with the church amendment in 1973 named after senator frank church of idaho, which has tried to protect the rights of health care providers, not to be coerced into abortion. the amendment was recently reaffirmed unanimously as part of the house version of health care reform legislation in congress and waxman health subcommittee was approved by a voice vote without dissent. it did not survive in the final legislation. federal agencies and state and local governments receive federal funds do not discriminate against health care providers because they do not

take bad teeth apart and abortions. this is a modest bill that has the federal government essentially policing itself, a government restraining itself from coercing abortion. it does not reach out and to private actions. it is long overdue for the hyde wheldon policy to receive a more secure status. congress's policy has been clear for 38 years that the mechanism for achieving it has suffered from drawbacks and loopholes including a failure even to specify where or how providers may go to have their rights in force. h.r. 3 writes the essentials civil-rights protection and permanent law allows for modest and reasonable remedies to ensure compliance, provides for private right of action, and designates the hhs office of civil rights to hear complaints. the need for more secure protection is there. the american civil liberties union has been urging the federal government to force

catholic and other hospitals to violate the moral and religious convictions by providing with the aclu calls to emergency abortions by which it means all abortions to serve women's life or health. they surely know it has been interpreted by the federal courts to mean socially or emotional well-being. this is an obvious threat to access to life affirming health care. catholic hospitals alone care for one in six patients in the united states each year and provide a full continuance of health care for more than 2,000 sponsors, systems, facilities, and related organizations. they have been shown to provide higher quality and more effective care including care for women than anyone else in the various studies. if congress wants to expand, rather than eliminate access to life test shaving health care including a live-saving health care for women and particularly for the poor and underserved it

should be concerned about any effort to attack the rights of these providers and undermine their continued ability to serve the common good. just to give a short answer to some questions raised about h.r. 3 with wonder answers in our prepared text, h.r. 3 does not eliminate private coverage for abortion, but specifically allows such coverage would be purchased without federal subsidy. does not -- does not create an unprecedented policy of denying tax benefits to abortion, but follows the recently enacted an affordable care act in this regard, which i believe had some democratic support. it is that act which said use of tax credits for abortion is federal funding of abortion. that simply follows the precedent. this bill does not depart from precedent by saying that the law does not compel states to fund abortions. in this regard as well it follows a policy actively supported by the democratic in

the last congress and stated no less than three times in the affordable care act. finally its conscience clause does not place women's lives at risk, but places women's lives at risk, as recently land from the story in philadelphia which is only the tip of the iceberg, but placing women's lives at risk is the abortion industry itself as well as that same industry attacking the continued viability of the most effective providers of life-saving care and the world. my prepared text provides additional details on these points, and that would be happy to answer questions. >> thank you, mr. richard doerflinger. we now recognize mrs. ruse for five minutes. >> thank you for inviting me to provide testimony this morning, this afternoon on the funding for abortion act.

it is nice to be back. a little less work on this side of the days, but not much. thirty-five years ago something of a consensus was reached between those who support legal abortion and those who oppose it. whatever our differences on the underlying question of legality, a majority of americans can together in support of the proposition that the federal government should not subsidize abortions. that consensus took the form of the hyde amendment of 1976 which limited abortion funding appropriated under labor hhs to cases where eight abortion was necessary to save a mother's life and later involving rape and incest. the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of the amendment in harris the gray and in so doing made a sharp distinction between abortions and other medical distinctive up procedures. in the words of the courts no other procedure involves the purchase purposeful termination of a mature -- potential life.

that abortion is scandalous to many is understandable. it is exceptionally controversial in the united states is beyond dispute. for these reasons it is entirely appropriate that abortion's not be subsidized in any way by the federal government. that no taxpayer funding for abortion act implement this legal and political consensus on a government-wide basis. over the years the hyde amendment and others like it have been included in various appropriations bills renewed annually by congress. what has been lacking is a single, simple law prohibiting government funding of abortion across the board wherever federal dollars are expended. we, taxpayers, paid for 425 abortions and fiscal year 2008. 220 last year. without the hyde amendment and the patchwork of other appropriations, that number could skyrocket to as many as

675,000 government-financed abortions every year, according to the cbo. now, two measures passed in the last congress also threatened to escalate the number of government-funded abortions dramatically. the d.c. appropriations bill opened the door to federal funding for any and every abortion in the district of columbia. and the patient protection and affordable care act known popularly as obamacare authorized federal funding for elective abortions directly and through private health insurance plans. a detailed accounting of the abortion subsidies is included in my written testimony. because these programs are directly appropriated and not subject to further appropriation under labor hhs they are not subject to the hyde amendment. as for the executive order purporting to nullify abortion

and obamacare last month former white house chief of staff admitted that he can up with an idea for an executive order so that the abortion fundings restriction would not exist by law. , on this he and i are in agreement with each other and also with planned parenthood who issued a statement calling the executive order a symbolic gesture. it is axiomatic that when government subsidizes conduct it encourages it. our tax code is replete with pertinent examples. the supreme court acknowledged to the truth of this proposition in the context of abortion. most abortions in america are purely elective. the 92 percent of abortions every year are performed on healthy women with healthy babies according to the alan good marker institute.

in light of this fact the abortion funding question is quite literally a matter of life and death for many thousands of american children. now, president obama has urged americans to find common ground on the controversial issue of abortion. americans have come together. 67 percent of us, and what may be the only truly bipartisan agreement possible. whatever our differences on the issue of abortion, we can agree that the federal government should not subsidize it. this is the common ground issue on abortion in america today. h.r. 3 would make that common ground statutory law. did you. >> thank you, mrs. ruse. we would now recognize professor sara rosenbaum for five minutes. >> thank you very much for inviting me today to appear before you. i would like to make three

points in my testimony. i have submitted an understatement for the record. the first has to do with a baseline from which we are working and considering h.r. 3. the second has to do with the changes in the bill. the third has to do with the impact of these changes. insofar as the baseline is concerned, i'd think it is very important to understand what the affordable care act does and does not do. the affordable care act where tax credits are concerned allows women to obtain tax credits, to use those tax credits to buy insurance products and if they choose to use their own money to buy additional coverage for abortion. if they make that choice and use their additional funds, their own funds to buy abortion coverage the tax credits remain completely available for the abortion product. i emphasize this because it underscores the unprecedented nature of the bill.

the bill would actually for the first time move the hyde amendment far beyond where we have known it for the past 30 years directly into the tax code. its reach in the tax cut is extremely broad under this bill. it reaches the deductions, credits, advanced tax credits, even when they have to be repaid at a later date. it reaches held savings accounts, flexible spending accounts, money that we as individuals but aside for our medical care needs. it even potentially reaches employers and employees deductions for insurance because of a critical ambiguity in the drafting of the bill. it is unclear, actually, where the bill stops. the impact of the bill in so far as tax policies are concerned is enormous. the first fallout is on the irs which heretofore has not played a role in implementation of the

hyde amendment. the irs is going to have to implement extremely complex provisions of the tax code that regulate tax favored a health benefit plans and medical care payments. we are going to need a rash of implementing policies, the internal revenue service to find a rate, a potentially and forcible rape, incest, potentially incest involving minors as opposed to not involving minors, physical conditions endangering life and the spoken dangers -- conditions that don't endanger life. the irs would have to tell us what evidentiary standards would be required for individual claimants and employers who choose to buy products or make expenditures that wander into these areas. there will have to be exchanged review process. for example, is a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage an allowable expenditures under off its fund? does it cross the line? what will be the appeals procedures? how will plans be allotted --

audited to make sure coverage stops at the elbow points under the statute? the fallout on plans is equally serious. my own analysis, both of the spill and previous spills that attempted to do that similar things in terms of the impact on the insurance industry leads me to conclude that what we will see, in fact, is a complete exodus of health plans from the market of abortion coverage. i realize that maybe the long term goal here, but, of course, because there are not a lot, but a small number of very serious medically indicated abortions, this would be an enormous problem. the third fallout is on the women themselves, not only because they can no longer get coverage for abortions that are medically indicated, but because the typical practice in the health plan is to exclude not only specific procedures. here it would be required under law.

but follow-on procedures and treat as related to the original excluded at treatment. so to use the example, a woman who needs an abortion because she has eclampsia, stroke-level hypertension who then needs subsequent treatment for hypertension could find that she, in fact, is disqualified for treatment for that hypertension because the hypertension and rose as the result of a condition that led to an excluded abortion. there is no stopping point. i would finally note that with the conscious clause provisions of this law to be enacted it would recommend the first grade unraveling and the absolute duty on the part of hospitals to provide a live-saving treatment regardless of the underlying medical condition. >> thank you, professor. thank all of you for your testimony, and i will now begin the questioning by recognizing myself for five minutes.

i'll start with you, mr. richard doerflinger. absent the enactment of h.r. 3, what does a health care provider risk if the provider of base his or her conscience and refuses to perform an abortion? >> i don't want to overstate this because in my view h.r. 3 basically codifies and makes more permanent protection that has long been in law. the problem is that -- this was illustrated in one case in new york very recently. the existing conscious laws are not very clear on what it is you do to actually protect your rights. gainers by the name of the carlo at mount sinai medical center recently found that although she was forced to participate in a late-term abortion after having her statement accepted by the initial -- initially by the hospital staff that she would not be required to assist in these abortions. she was forced anyway. she was given the job of

reassembling the body parts on the table in the operating room to make sure they got all the pieces of the baby and has had nightmares ever since. had a terrible time. she was told she would be fired if she did not do this. what she found was when she went to court, because the conscious, the federal conscious laws don't have anything in them that say you have a private right of action to go to court she had no recourse. all she could do is file a complaint with the department of health and human services, and a year-and-a-half after the abortion she still has not heard from them. the cases in which there continue to be efforts to get governmental bodies to discriminate against pro-life health care providers occur every week. there was a recent case here in my hometown, montgomery county in which holy cross hospital seems to be on course approved by the state of maryland to build a new hospital in northern montgomery county because it had -- it made the best case for being able to provide excellent

care to the women and men of the county. there was a serious effort fight abortion activists to say you must not give this contract to holy cross hospital, but someone else, even if it did the general health care proposal is not as good because if you give it to holy cross he will not have access to abortions through the hospitals up there. these efforts to discriminate against health care providers occur all the time. we are trying to make sure the protection is actually there and working. >> mr. doerflinger there was a controversy in 2007-8 concerning the concerns of conscious protections for health care workers, specifically changes in the ethics guidelines. changes in the certifying criteria for the certifying agency of ob/gyn, that is abog. all of these acronyms. the american board of obstetrics and gynecology.

it calls into confusion whether it can result in the certification, ending their career. would you explain this controversy and have led to the regulations put in place at the end of the bushes ministers in? >> yes, the ethics committee companion came out and 2007. despite all the controversy it was reaffirmed by the organization in 2010. what really sent a chill of fear across many ob/gyn throughout the country he did not perform abortions is that very often the ethical principles articulated by a acog become a standard for certification by the partner organization, the american board of ob/gyn. this was one of the reasons why the bush administration decided to try to clarify regulations who -- to uphold these providers rights and regulations, which the obama administration has proposed to rescind. but the acog document is

breathtaking in its disregard for any ob/gyn that does not want to do abortion. they say that these ob/gyn must nonetheless be willing to refer for abortions. if there is no one to refer them to they must do than themselves. they even say that if you are an ob/gyn that does not do abortions he should make sure you look it your practice near an abortion provider to make sure it is easy for everybody to get from you tell the abortion. so you have -- one talks about the tail wagging the dog. this is the tip on the tale of the dog wagging the entire health care system saying people have to disrupt their lives and livelihood and change even with a practice to make sure they are as close as possible to an abortionist. >> i'm not going to try to get a question in here. my time is gone. i will yield to the distinguished gentleman for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

ms. ruse, you take the position the reduction of taxation is a form of government subsidy. this is flatly at odds with what the organization of family research council stated in the context of tuition for religious schools. if it isn't -- where you said there is no government spending on religion here, and people's private money that they sent to various organizations. isn't it federal funding when people used to have it isn't federal funding when people use their private money at a parochial school and see the tax deduction or credit for doing so. how is it when people use their private money to pay for their medical care or insurance coverage? >> as a general proposition tax reduction is a form of government subsidy. >> and bike tax subsidy you meaa reduction. >> that's right. i will direct it to come and get to these addition, if you need it, but obamacare itself makes this distinction.

it calls tax credits for buying insurance on state exchanges, it calls those a creature of federal funding. >> i'm asking you, it seems inconsistent. either it is or isn't. how can you say that for religious schools it is not and for health insurance it is? how do you make that distinction? >> well, i appreciated your opening statement where you said it is our money, and that is what the republicans often say. i think it -- >> in which case he should not be what you are arguing with respect to health care. it is our money. if it is our money than it is not a government subsidy. as you said in the -- as the organization said in the arizona case. if it is not our money and it is the government subsidy, both things can't be true. >> i was a your argument is with president obama. >> that may be, but i'm asking you how you justify saying it is a government subsidy here but

not their? which is it and why is it different? >> as a general proposition tax reduction as a form of government subsidy, as a general proposition. >> but not with effect to religious schools? okay. mr. doerflinger. let me ask you, as a general proposition government tax exemptions, tax subsidies are attacks -- what he called government spending? you said it was -- what did you say as a general proposition it is a form of government subsidy. if tax exemptions are a form of government subsidy how do we justify tax exemptions for the catholic church, the jewish synagogue, the protestant church, or any other -- >> the first reason why churches are not taxable is simply that they don't make a profit. nonprofit organizations. >> wait a minute. they are exempt.

what about the individual who gives money to the church? that is not taxable. isn't that under your definition a government subsidy for the church? >> if the federal government has made a policy decision a very long time ago that charities and churches -- >> it's not a question of policy decision. if it is a public to the church is unconstitutional because of the establishment clause. so it's a tax credit to the individual to reading to the church is not a government subsidy in these things aren't government subsidies. if it is then you have an establishment problem with the first amendment. >> it is not unconstitutional to give public subsidies to a charitable or church organization as long as you are serving the legitimate and secular purposes. >> excuse me. wait a minute. we are not talking about that. we are not talking about that. our policy, we -- if you give --

i'm sorry, if i give a contribution to my synagogue, it is not for general purposes, but religious purposes. >> right. >> and that is -- and i take a tax deduction for that. under your definition that is a government subsidy of the synagogue where church and it should be there for a violation of the first amendment. >> that is not my definition, sir. i disagree with your basic premise which is -- >> all right. >> all of these things are the same and it went think. >> are trying to have your cake and eat it, too. other a tax exemption is a government subsidy, or it is not. if it is not then the whole point -- excuse me. i am talking. the whole point of this bill is wrong. if it is a government subsidy, then this bill may be right, but then we have to not just a question, but tax subsidies, government subsidies, of religious institutions are probably unconstitutional as

violations of the establishment clauses of the first amendment. professor rosenbaum, do you agree with ms. ruse position? >> i do not for the reasons stated in my written testimony. i find section 3032 ambiguous. it specifically refers to any deduction test covering not only medical care but health benefit plans. i think that the ambiguity is critical on this point. >> thank you. my time is expired. >> thank you. just to clarify the point, both tax preferred status and appropriations have been recognized in the courts as being allowed for a public good, and i think that the consideration here is that abortion is not a public good. it really doesn't need to reach to mr. nablus' point, which i think he has some balance to his

point, it does not matter if it is a tax-deferred status are not whether government should still have the right to shape the tax code in favor of a public good or against something that they consider not a public good. with that, i recognize the distinguished cinnamon from indiana before his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me also join the ranking member in congratulating you on your appointment. mr. chairman of the subcommittee, i think you know that i can think of no one in the newly minted majority in congress who i think is more appropriate to lead the subcommittee that you, and i found your opening remarks powerful and eloquent, and i wish to offer you my congratulations as i do to all the members and the majority of the minority on the subcommittee. thanks for holding this hearing. i appreciate the opportunity to participate in the discussion of h.r. 3, and i commend

congressman chris smith for his on this issue. as our witness has testified with the passage of the patient protection and affordable care act, the need for permanent, government-wide prohibition on taxpayer funding for abortion has probably never been more important to be sadly, congress last year traded in 30 years of testing for protections for taxpayers for a piece of paper signed by the most pro-abortion president since roe v wade. and the need to pass such legislation, i believe, is self evident when we think about the extraordinary subsidies, both direct and indirect in the patient affordable care act for patients across government spending. let me say i also think now is the time to end taxpayer funding, not also -- not only for abortion, but also for abortion providers.

that is why i have offered a bill that would end all title ten family planning funding to abortion providers. specifically planned parenthood is sadly back in the news today. a new undercover video has been released showing multiple violations by planned parenthood in police in new york to go along with the scandalous videos from planned parenthood clinics in new jersey and virginia. the videos show planned parenthood in please prison lovably advising an undercover sex trafficker on how to secure secret abortions, as did the testing and contraception for child prostites